Business as usual (so far) under tougher Rule 702
The first reported appellate decision to cite the new Rule 702 changes has appeared, but there’s no sea change to report.
Working Effectively With Attorneys (How to Be a Better Expert)
You’ve honed your valuation skills through education, training, and experience and have been educating clients about what their businesses have been worth for years. Now litigation counsel is asking you to educate judges and juries about the economics of a complex commercial dispute. The best way to be an effective expert, in addition to having those well-honed skills, is to gain an understanding of both the litigation forum and the general needs of counsel. This ...
New Rule 702 crackdown already impacting expert witnesses
Although they don’t officially go into effect until December 1, expert witnesses are already feeling the effects of the changes designed to strengthen Rule 702, which is the federal rule of evidence regarding testifying experts.
Expert Survives Daubert—Allowed to Testify as to Lost Business Value
The case dealt with two motions to preclude testimony of an expert witness as to the loss in value of the plaintiff’s business. The plaintiff was an environmental consulting firm allegedly injured as a result of the actions of certain employees including breach of their fiduciary duty. The court concluded that the witness may testify because his report was based on sufficient facts and data and he applied reliable principles to the facts of this case.
White Buffalo Env’t, Inc. v. Hungry Horse, LLC
The case dealt with two motions to preclude testimony of an expert witness as to the loss in value of the plaintiff’s business. The plaintiff was an environmental consulting firm allegedly injured as a result of the actions of certain employees including breach of their fiduciary duty. The court concluded that the witness may testify because his report was based on sufficient facts and data and he applied reliable principles to the facts of this case.
Business Valuation Case Law Yearbook, 2023 Edition
January 2023 PDF, Softcover (195 pages)
BVR (editor)
Business Valuation Resources, LLC
Appraisers Continue to Be Excluded Most Under Daubert, Per PwC Study
Under Daubert, appraisers were excluded more often in 2021 than any other type of financial expert witness, according to the latest edition of an annual PwC survey. Of the three most common financial experts (economists, accountants, and appraisers), appraisers had a 38% exclusion rate in 2021, followed by accountants (32%) and economists (27%). The article gives more insights into the survey and some ways to avoid a Daubert challenge.
Appraisers have highest exclusion rate under Daubert, per PwC study
Under Daubert, appraisers were excluded more often in 2021 than any other type of financial expert witness, according to the PwC survey, “Daubert Challenges to Financial Experts (2000-2021).”
Pinto v. Schinitsky
The Supreme Court of New York denied motions to dismiss assertions of excess compensation, payments to a consultant, and a salary paid to the defendant’s mother. The court also denied a Daubert motion to exclude the plaintiff’s expert on the reasonableness of compensation. The plaintiff’s expert, a CPA, was found to qualify even though reasonable compensation was not his competency for his practice.
New York Court Denies Claims in Three Damages Categories, Denies Daubert Motion to Exclude Experts
The Supreme Court of New York denied motions to dismiss assertions of excess compensation, payments to a consultant, and a salary paid to the defendant’s mother. The court also denied a Daubert motion to exclude the plaintiff’s expert on the reasonableness of compensation. The plaintiff’s expert, a CPA, was found to qualify even though reasonable compensation was not his competency for his practice.
Appraisers Have the Highest Exclusion Rate Under Daubert, Per PwC Study
A look at the latest study from PwC that analyzes challenges to financial expert witnesses (appraisers, accountants, economists, and others) under the Daubert standards from 2000 to 2020. Also, some classic advice on how to survive a Daubert challenge.
Business Valuation Case Law Yearbook, 2022 Edition
January 2022 PDF, Softcover (177 pages)
BVR (editor)
Business Valuation Resources, LLC
The legal coverage and in-depth analysis from the BVR legal team deliver lessons learned to help appraisers reach better and more defensible valuation conclusions. All the cases featured in this book impart important lessons about applicable legal principles, approved and discredited valuation methodology, and the act (and art) of presenting expert opinions. This must-have collection benefits both the generalist as well as the specialist.
Learn more >>
Discovery dispute over damages expert’s undisclosed work paper
In a discovery dispute, a federal court recently found the defendant had no duty to disclose to the opposing side its expert’s “intermediary” working paper that he used to prepare his damages calculation.
Patent Infringement Case Provides Judge With a Plethora of Daubert Challenges to Rule on
In this patent infringement case, the court ruled on a plethora of Daubert/Rule 702 challenges. The opinion provides an exhaustive list of Daubert-related issues that the court ruled on and provides a good tutorial on the real purposes of Daubert.
Shire ViroPharma Inc. v. CSL Behring LLC
In this patent infringement case, the court ruled on a plethora of Daubert/Rule 702 challenges. The opinion provides an exhaustive list of Daubert-related issues that the court ruled on and provides a good tutorial on the real purposes of Daubert.
Whitesell Corp. v. Electrolux Home Prods.
In this Rule 26 discovery case, court says sanctions are inappropriate where the defendant had no duty to disclose its expert’s “intermediary” working paper; however, sanctions are appropriate related to the expert’s miscalculations; court finds expert testimony is admissible under Daubert.
Expert’s Damages Testimony Prompts Motion for Sanctions and Motion to Exclude Under Daubert
In this Rule 26 discovery case, court says sanctions are inappropriate where the defendant had no duty to disclose its expert’s “intermediary” working paper; however, sanctions are appropriate related to the expert’s miscalculations; court finds expert testimony is admissible under Daubert.
Innovation Ventures, L.L.C. v. Custom Nutrition Labs., L.L.C.
This case involves a consideration of motions by both the plaintiff and the defendant to exclude the testimony of the other party’s expert witness on the basis of Daubert and the Federal Rules of Evidence. The plaintiff’s expert offered testimony on how to calculate lost profits based on the plaintiff’s market share. The defendant’s expert offered testimony as to weaknesses in the plaintiff’s calculations and opinions on damages. The court denied both of these cross-motions.
The District Court Refuses to Throw Out Experts Under Daubert Motions, Citing Differences in Admissibility and Scrutiny Under Cross-Examination
This case involves a consideration of motions by both the plaintiff and the defendant to exclude the testimony of the other party’s expert witness on the basis of Daubert and the Federal Rules of Evidence. The plaintiff’s expert offered testimony on how to calculate lost profits based on the plaintiff’s market share. The defendant’s expert offered testimony as to weaknesses in the plaintiff’s calculations and opinions on damages. The court denied both of these cross-motions.
The Top Valuation and Damages Cases of 2020
Our pick of valuation-related court cases includes state and federal court decisions covering many areas of law that dealt with novel issues of law or, in some way, enhanced our understanding of valuation and damages issues as they arose in a litigation setting.
Solvency opinion based on management projections faces Daubert challenge
In a bankruptcy-cum-Daubert case that turned on solvency, a court recently rejected both parties’ claims that the opposing financial expert testimony was inadmissible.
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.
Experts Need Not Be ‘Blue-Ribbon Practitioners’ to Meet Rule 702 Qualification Requirement
In bankruptcy dispute, court rejects parties’ Daubert challenge to opposing expert testimony; defense expert did not blindly rely on management projections for capital adequacy and balance sheet tests, and plaintiff’s expert did not use hindsight to find debtor was insolvent on fund transfer dates.