Expand the following panels for additional search options.

Maryland commits to Daubert for evaluating admissibility of expert testimony

In a critical move, Maryland’s highest court recently changed the standard for the admission of expert testimony when it abandoned the existing two-channel approach in favor of Daubert.

Rochkind v. Stevenson

In a split decision featuring a long-running tort case that hinged on medical expert testimony regarding plaintiff’s claims of lead poising, divided state high court abandons two-channel approach, including Frye general acceptance test, for Daubert standard of admissibility of expert testimony.

Split Maryland High Court Adopts Daubert for Testing Admissibility of Expert Testimony

In a split decision featuring a long-running tort case that hinged on medical expert testimony regarding plaintiff’s claims of lead poising, divided state high court abandons two-channel approach, including Frye general acceptance test, for Daubert standard of admissibility of expert testimony.

Geiger v. Creative Impact Inc.

Court admits survey evidence, finding expert’s methodology conformed to accepted principles in the field and noting that technical objections go toward weight; court also admits both parties’ damages experts, finding they had extensive experience in the field and were both qualified; questions as to reliability of method “can be explored at trial.”

Expert’s Damages Calculation Based on Extensive Experience in Field Is Reliable, Court Finds

Court admits survey evidence, finding expert’s methodology conformed to accepted principles in the field and noting that technical objections go toward weight; court also admits both parties’ damages experts, finding they had extensive experience in the field and were both qualified; questions as to reliability of method “can be explored at trial.”

Eurochem North America Corp. v. Ganske

Court finds proposed expert testimony inadmissible under Rule 702 and Daubert where expert did not himself prepare the value determination, conceded any estimate of value by his firm was prepared for marketing purposes, and where damages model that expert testimony supported was fatally flawed.

Lack of Valuation Credentials Does Not Disqualify Expert, but Failure to Perform Valuation Does, Court Finds

Court finds proposed expert testimony inadmissible under Rule 702 and Daubert where expert did not himself prepare the value determination, conceded any estimate of value by his firm was prepared for marketing purposes, and where damages model that expert testimony supported was fatally flawed.

Valuers and Forensics Experts Converge at the 2019 AICPA FVS Conference

A mix of topics had something for everyone at this conference. Of note were some excellent sessions on expert testimony and there was a definite emphasis on fair value for financial reporting.

2019 Key Valuation and Damages Cases

A discussion of the court cases that have dominated the conversation in 2019 among financial experts by making law or influencing attitudes on key valuation issues.

Manichaean Capital, LLC v. SourceHOV Holdings, Inc.

In appraisal proceeding, Court of Chancery adopts petitioner expert’s DCF-based model for calculating fair value, making slight adjustment to expert’s size premium; on beta calculation, court finds respondent expert’s novel approach “does not survive judicial scrutiny” and raises Daubert issues.

Novel Beta Method Occasions Rebuke From Court of Chancery in Appraisal Case

In appraisal proceeding, Court of Chancery adopts petitioner expert’s DCF-based model for calculating fair value, making slight adjustment to expert’s size premium; on beta calculation, court finds respondent expert’s novel approach “does not survive judicial scrutiny” and raises Daubert issues.

Pawelko v. Hasbro, Inc.

In trade secrets dispute, court denies defendant’s Daubert motion, finding exclusion of opposing damages expert testimony for failure to apportion is premature; whether or not entire market value rule applies is determination for jury “after hearing all the documentary and testimonial evidence.”

Court Decides Daubert Exclusion of Expert Testimony for Failure to Apportion Is Premature

In trade secrets dispute, court denies defendant’s Daubert motion, finding exclusion of opposing damages expert testimony for failure to apportion is premature; whether or not entire market value rule applies is determination for jury “after hearing all the documentary and testimonial evidence.”

BVU News and Trends November 2019

A monthly roundup of key developments of interest to business valuation experts.

Survey of Daubert Challenges to Experts Suggests Red Flags to Avoid

In 2018, appraisers had the lowest exclusion rate among all types of financial experts facing a Daubert challenge, reveals the current edition of an annual PwC survey. The article also presents some tips on how to avoid a challenge.

Parties fight over notes-containing expert report: draft or final version?

Several sessions at the recent AICPA conference in Las Vegas highlighted the importance of expert discovery in litigation and noted that draft reports continue to be a hot-button issue.

IceMOS Tech. Corp. v. Omron Corp.

In contract dispute, court denies defendant’s Daubert motions, finding plaintiff’s experts are qualified based on extensive experience in relevant industry; experts could provide testimony relevant to surviving lost development support costs claim and their testimony is not unreliable as of now.

Plaintiff’s Projections Fail to Meet New York Test for Lost Profits or Lost Business Value

A breach of contract case in which the plaintiff asked for various types of economic damages is noteworthy for the court s extended discussion of what the plaintiff must show under New York law to make a case for lost profits. The court explained that the hurdle was particularly high for a new business or a business trying to break into a new market considering the company s lack of a financial track record. Damages must be ...

Pointers for expert witnesses from the AICPA FVS conference

BVWire sat through several excellent sessions involving valuations for litigation purposes at the 2019 AICPA Forensic and Valuation Services Conference in Las Vegas.

Some courts prefer back-of-the-envelope calculations, expert says

Although some appraisers are categorically opposed to calculation engagements, it is not unusual for courts to want a back-of-the-envelope calculation, a veteran BV expert says.

Calculation engagements receive mixed reactions from courts

If the appraisal profession is conflicted over the validity of calculation engagements, so are courts, as a brief review of court decisions on the BVLaw platform shows.

County of Maricopa v. Office Depot Inc.

In denying defendant’s pretrial motion to exclude plaintiff’s expert testimony under Daubert and Rule 37, which specifies sanctions for failure to make disclosures or cooperate in discovery, court finds note-containing version of expert report is a draft not subject to discovery under Rule 26.

Expert Report Containing Notes Qualifies as Draft Not Subject to Discovery

In denying defendant’s pretrial motion to exclude plaintiff’s expert testimony under Daubert and Rule 37, which specifies sanctions for failure to make disclosures or cooperate in discovery, court finds note-containing version of expert report is a draft not subject to discovery under Rule 26.

Cline v. Sunoco

In class-certification context, court says plaintiff’s damages expert meets Rule 702/Daubert requirements as they apply in early stage of litigation; expert is qualified, and, damages model, even if not fully developed, provides a sufficiently reliable way to calculate damages on classwide basis.

Expert Testimony Offered at Class-Certification Stage Survives Daubert Challenge

In class-certification context, court says plaintiff’s damages expert meets Rule 702/Daubert requirements as they apply in early stage of litigation; expert is qualified, and, damages model, even if not fully developed, provides a sufficiently reliable way to calculate damages on classwide basis.

1 - 25 of 358 results