Court Draws Line Between Data Quality and Data Quantity
In personal injury case involving sole owner of LLC, court leans on 7th Circuit Manpower decision in deciding which parts of expert’s loss analysis to admit; it dismisses defendants’ objections concerned with data quality rather than data quantity.
In re Groupon Secs. Litig.
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.
Expert’s Failure to Adhere to Objective Standard Spoils Analysis
Court excludes lost profits analysis under Daubert where expert calculates value of plaintiff’s book of business without documenting comparables, verifying plaintiff’s claims as to number of lost clients, and employing objective work-life expectancy data.
What Role for Revenue Ruling 59-60 Factors in Valuing Closely Held Business?
Expert’s use of Revenue Ruling 59-60 for valuation of closely held business and for damages calculation does not render opinion inadmissible under Daubert, court says, noting that scope of revenue ruling goes beyond valuation of estate and gift taxes.
Washington v. Kellwood Co. (I)
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.
Advanced Drainage Sys. v. Quality Culvert, Inc.
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.
Immersion Corp. v. HTC Corp.
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 ...
Chambers v. Fike
In personal injury case involving sole owner of LLC, court leans on 7th Circuit Manpower decision in deciding which parts of expert’s loss analysis to admit; it dismisses defendants’ objections concerned with data quality rather than data quantity.
J&M Distrib., Inc. v. Hearth & Home Techs., Inc.
Expert’s use of Revenue Ruling 59-60 for valuation of closely held business and for damages calculation does not render opinion inadmissible under Daubert, court says, noting that scope of revenue ruling goes beyond valuation of estate and gift taxes.
Russell v. Allianze Life Ins. Co. of N.A.
Court excludes lost profits analysis under Daubert where expert calculates value of plaintiff’s book of business without documenting comparables, verifying plaintiff’s claims as to number of lost clients, and employing objective work-life expectancy data.
Court Emphasizes Benefit of Hindsight in Evaluating Loss Period
Court finds business valuator is qualified under Daubert to proffer lost profits calculation relying on statistics methods and says expert’s loss period is not a mere “guess” because hindsight reduces years of uncertainty as to relevant market conditions.
Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc. v. Dolgencorp, LLC
Appeals court affirms Daubert exclusion of plaintiff's damages expert because she analyzed the wrong problem and her conclusion did not assist the trier of fact; also, her economic model and regression analysis failed to measure “effect of the violation.”
Expert’s Tax Appraisal Weathers Frontal Daubert Attack
Appeals court says tax tribunal did not abdicate its gatekeeper role under Rule 702 when admitting taxpayer expert’s appraisal, where the expert was qualified and used a reliable methodology; a searching inquiry into the underlying data was not necessary.
Court Trusts Process to Test Expert’s Calculation of Value
Calculation reports periodically become a point of contention in litigation in trial and appeals courts. Courts have responded in different ways to questions about their usefulness and reliability. A recent case explores the issue of whether expert testimony based on a calculation of value is admissible under Daubert. Prior to marriage, the husband founded a company that marketed and sold Steel Seal, a car repair product that sealed blown head gaskets. The company ...
Failure to Specify Offset Value Does Not Preclude Expert’s Admissibility
In contract dispute, court finds defendant expert’s testimony regarding offset value of new equipment plaintiff installed in reliance on contract is relevant under Daubert even though expert fails to state precise monetary benefit to plaintiff.
Use of Reliable Method Does Not Assure Admissibility
Appeals court finds trial court had discretion under Daubert to exclude expert testimony on future lost profits where expert used the “first mover advantage” as part of his DCF analysis to quantify damages and ended up with an unreliable method.
A Time Limit on Use of Destruction of Business Method?
Court finds damages expert’s use of destruction of business method is not improper despite a four-year gap between the alleged offending conduct and the company’s demise, and it does not render his calculation inadmissible under Daubert.
Packgen v. Berry Plastics Corp. (I)
Court finds business valuator is qualified under Daubert to proffer lost profits calculation relying on statistics methods and says expert’s loss period is not a mere “guess” because hindsight reduces years of uncertainty as to relevant market conditions.
Forecast’s Assumption Imperils Conjoined Expert Opinions
In breach of contract suit, court strikes expert’s revenue forecasts, using Monte Carlo simulation, finding key assumption resulted from expert’s misreading of contract; court also strikes second expert’s valuation resting on inadmissible forecasts.