Appraisers fare best at surviving a Daubert challenge
In 2018, appraisers had the lowest exclusion rate (38%) among all types of financial experts facing a Daubert challenge, reveals the PwC survey, “Daubert Challenges to Financial Experts.”
In about face, Florida Supreme Court abandons Frye for Daubert
Florida has a history of wavering when it comes to the standard for admissibility of expert testimony. Not too long ago, the state Supreme Court frustrated legislative efforts to move the state from the Frye standard to the Daubert standard only to reverse itself recently by announcing the adoption of Daubert.
Flip-flopping, Florida Supreme Court adopts Daubert
In a startling move, the Florida Supreme Court recently ruled that, “effective immediately upon the release of this opinion,” the state would adhere to the Daubert standard when assessing the admissibility of expert testimony.
Daubert Rulings Reflect Courts’ Disparate Views on Gatekeeping Role
As several recent court decisions show, different judges interpret the gatekeeping role, which they assume under Rule 702 and Daubert, very differently. Some courts take a liberal approach while others favor close scrutiny of the expert’s qualifications and proposed opinion.
Evolving Issues in Proving Lost Profits in Commercial Litigation
The authors provide a formal model of lost profits with a special focus on measurement of expenses, how “time” is a factor, and special efforts the expert needs to make to reduce the chances of failing a Daubert challenge.
Recent Daubert rulings show courts’ different takes on the role of gatekeeper
A series of recent Daubert cases illustrate how different courts may interpret the role of “gatekeeper,” which they perform under Rule 702 and Daubert.
Court Admits Unjust Enrichment Damages Based on Profit Projections
In Daubert case centering on misappropriation of trade secrets, court says plaintiff expert’s valuation of trade secrets based on defense projections of sales and profits derived from offending product is admissible; defendant failed to show this approach to determine asset’s value is improper.
Grove US LLC v. Sany America Inc.
In Daubert case centering on misappropriation of trade secrets, court says plaintiff expert’s valuation of trade secrets based on defense projections of sales and profits derived from offending product is admissible; defendant failed to show this approach to determine asset’s value is improper.
Post-trial briefs in Vinoskey ESOP trial point to fierce valuation fight
The DOL’s aggressive oversight strategy concerning ESOPs has led to a number of controversial lawsuits, including, most recently, the Acosta v. Vinoskey case, which, in the past few months, went to trial over the DOL's overpayment claim.
In Gatekeeper Role, Court Trains Attention on Expert Methodology, Not Conclusions
In ESOP case pivoting on valuation, court denies parties’ Daubert challenges; court notes “gatekeeping” means focusing “on principles and methodology, not the conclusions that [the experts] generate”; parties’ objections are mostly quarrels with opposing expert’s conclusions, court finds.
Acosta v. Wilmington Trust, N.A. (I) (Graphite)
In ESOP case pivoting on valuation, court denies parties’ Daubert challenges; court notes “gatekeeping” means focusing “on principles and methodology, not the conclusions that [the experts] generate”; parties’ objections are mostly quarrels with opposing expert’s conclusions, court finds.
2018 Key Business Valuation and Damages Cases
Choices for the most interesting and pivotal court cases of 2018 involving business valuation issues.
Court Says Daubert’s ‘Gatekeeper’ Role Favors Inclusion, Not Exclusion
In contract and tort case, court declines to exclude plaintiff’s damages expert, noting court’s gatekeeping function “is not a role that emphasizes exclusion of expert testimony”; expert’s background in economics and business valuation experience qualified him to value subject company.
Ferraro v. Convercent, Inc.
In contract and tort case, court declines to exclude plaintiff’s damages expert, noting court’s gatekeeping function “is not a role that emphasizes exclusion of expert testimony”; expert’s background in economics and business valuation experience qualified him to value subject company.
Failure to explain inputs gets expert excluded under Daubert
If more proof is necessary to show that courts across all legal fields dive deep into the details of valuation testimony, a recent damages case that arose in the context of a condemnation proceeding should do the trick.
Enplas Display Device Corp. v. Seoul Semiconductor Co.
Court majority says jury award was based on insufficient evidence because expert’s damage theory envisioned a premium freedom-to-operate license based on past sales of noninfringing products; dissent says expert’s hypothetical negotiation reflected real world concerns and supported award.
Federal Circuit Majority Says ‘Premium’ License Calculation Includes Noninfringing Products
Court majority says jury award was based on insufficient evidence because expert’s damage theory envisioned a premium freedom-to-operate license based on past sales of noninfringing products; dissent says expert’s hypothetical negotiation reflected real world concerns and supported award.
Expert’s inability to defend income analysis ‘is decidedly troubling,’ court says
Judges are alert to incongruities in valuations, as is clear from a recent condemnation case in which landowners hired three experts to calculate the compensation owed to them.
Daubert Ruling on How to Satisfy Apportionment When Using Benchmark Licenses
Allowing that apportionment is “inherently imprecise,” court says damages expert’s supplemental report shows that the apportionment underlying three benchmark licenses aligns with the expert’s royalty rate in the hypothetical license; expert’s royalty opinion is admissible under Daubert.
Bio Rad Labs. v. 10X Genomics, Inc. (II)
Allowing that apportionment is “inherently imprecise,” court says damages expert’s supplemental report shows that the apportionment underlying three benchmark licenses aligns with the expert’s royalty rate in the hypothetical license; expert’s royalty opinion is admissible under Daubert.
More on Florida’s decision re: Daubert
As we reported last week, the Florida Supreme Court recently invalidated a 2013 legislative amendment that required courts to use the Daubert standard to assess the admissibility of expert testimony.
Florida Supreme Court negates legislature’s adoption of Daubert
In 2013, the Florida legislature amended the Florida code, section 90.702, dealing with expert testimony, to incorporate the Daubert standard in the state’s rules of evidence.
New Jersey closer to Daubert but still not a Daubert jurisdiction
A decision from the Supreme Court recently led New Jersey to adopt key Daubert factors for determining the admissibility of expert testimony, but the high court’s ruling also expresses a reluctance to fully embrace the Daubert standard.
New Jersey adopts key Daubert factors for expert admissibility determination
In an important ruling, the New Jersey Supreme Court recently took a big step toward Daubert but failed to embrace it completely.
Meridian Mfg. v. C&B Mfg.
Court admits expert opinion that reasonable royalty cannot exceed cost of developing noninfringing alternative because opinion is based on facts of the case; court excludes opposing expert’s royalty because he failed to assess comparability of selected licenses to patented technology.