Destruction of financial evidence trips up guilty party's own experts
As a damages expert, what do you do when your own client has destroyed vital financial information? Two highly educated finance professionals working on a contract case solved this dilemma by relying exclusively on the opposing side's sales projections, only to see their analysis buckle under a Daubert challenge.
Hanckel v. Campbell (In re Hanckel)
Court finds debtor’s fraudulently conveyed interest represents a dissociated interest that is held by the estate; appropriate valuation date is date of trial, and DCF analysis, as modified by court, best captures value of the interest at that time.
Damages Opinion Reveals ‘Serious Misconception’ of Role of Expert
Court excludes most of rebuttal opinion under Daubert, saying it is not “the product of reliable principles and methods” owing to expert’s “serious misconception of his role and misreading of the authorities he cites,” particularly with regard to causatio ...
Bruno v. Bozzuto’s, Inc.
Court excludes plaintiffs’ DCF-based damages calculation, finding it suffers from “garbage-in, garbage-out” problem; plaintiffs’ experts based cash flow analysis on defendant’s preliminary projections rather than subsequently available actual sales data.
Deflecto, LLC v. Dundas Jafine Inc.
Court calls Daubert challenger’s attack on expert’s lost profits opinion “misguided”; it unduly focuses on expert’s familiarity with legal standards and fails to explain what is wrong with expert’s use of software program for projecting future damages.
Sternat v. Sternat
Appeals court says trial court’s decision to admit opinion of seasoned CPA expert who was not a credentialed business valuator was not error because valuation was a “non-issue” where evidence showed the indebted company was no longer a going concern.
Complex Facts Test Patent Experts’ Apportionment Skills
Court admits apportionment based on lines of infringing code and on value defendant places on product features in accused products but excludes apportionment using forward citation analysis for failure to show value of asserted patents in marketplace.
‘Blunderbuss of Objections’ Aims to Kill Loss of Goodwill Calculation
Defendant’s “blunderbuss of objections” to opposing expert’s valuation of loss of goodwill misses mark, 7th Circuit says; expert used a standard business valuation method and his reliance on company financials was justified under rules of evidence.
Expert Rebuttal Fails to Engage With Initial Valuation
Court excludes so-called rebuttal report where expert failed to review the initial expert report but instead contradicted the opposing party’s main contention; proponent’s attempt to append report to proper rebuttal valuation testimony is “gamesmanship.”
Uncritical Use of Royalty Rate Data Spoils Damages Opinion
Court excludes most of damages testimony under Daubert because expert based reasonable royalty calculation on data from IP databases and publications without subjecting information to rigorous analysis and establishing its relevance to case at hand.
Daubert Allows for Generous View on Yardstick Analysis
Court rejects bright-line reliability test for yardstick analysis, saying expert’s failure to find a “nearly identical” comparator did not render analysis unreliable and inadmissible under Daubert and finding companies were similar in material respects.
Rowe v. DPI Specialty Foods
Court excludes most of rebuttal opinion under Daubert, saying it is not “the product of reliable principles and methods” owing to expert’s “serious misconception of his role and misreading of the authorities he cites,” particularly with regard to causatio ...
Finjan, Inc. v. Blue Coat Systems, Inc. (I)
Court admits apportionment based on lines of infringing code and on value defendant places on product features in accused products but excludes apportionment using forward citation analysis for failure to show value of asserted patents in marketplace.
Tilstra v. Boumatic LLC
Defendant’s “blunderbuss of objections” to opposing expert’s valuation of loss of goodwill misses mark, 7th Circuit says; expert used a standard business valuation method and his reliance on company financials was justified under rules of evidence.
Court Endorses Before and After Method for Lost Profits
In Daubert case, court accepts before and after method for lost profits and diminution of value calculation but excludes parts of expert testimony because they merely restated company assumptions and conclusions without undergoing testing from the expert.
Fraud Litigation Highlights Dispute Over ‘Market Efficiency’
Court rebuffs Daubert challenge to investor expert’s efficient market opinion, saying securities law only requires showing that false statements affected stock price and caused loss to investors, not that market perfectly reflected all public information.
StoneEagle Servs., Inc. v. Pay-Plus Solutions, Inc.
Court says market approach is “sound and reliable methodology” for calculating reasonable royalty and denies defendants’ Daubert motion to preclude plaintiff’s expert from testifying why he declined to use Georgia-Pacific factors in this case.
Chico’s Fas, Inc. v. Clair
Court excludes most of damages testimony under Daubert because expert based reasonable royalty calculation on data from IP databases and publications without subjecting information to rigorous analysis and establishing its relevance to case at hand.
Clear-View Technologies, Inc. v. Rasnick (II)
Court excludes so-called rebuttal report where expert failed to review the initial expert report but instead contradicted the opposing party’s main contention; proponent’s attempt to append report to proper rebuttal valuation testimony is “gamesmanship.”
Clear-View Technologies, Inc. v. Rasnick (I)
Court excludes so-called rebuttal report where expert failed to review the initial expert report but instead contradicted the opposing party’s main contention; proponent’s attempt to append report to proper rebuttal valuation testimony is “gamesmanship.”
Court Declares Lost Profits Analysis ‘Goes Too Far’
Court says nontraditional lost profits theory goes “too far” as it assumes sales occurred pursuant to a license the parties negotiated but never actually executed and assumes revenue derived not only from patents-in-suit, but also related unpatented softw ...