Slatowski v. Sig Sauer, Inc.
The defendant, an ICE officer, was injured when his pistol fired unintentionally. The defendant gun manufacturer, Sig Sauer, filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that the plaintiff cannot establish its defective design product liability claim because the expert testimony it offered to prove causation was inadmissible and unreliable. The court granted the defendant’s motion.
Plaintiff Fails to Prove Causation—U.S. District Court (Pennsylvania) Grants Summary Judgment to Defendant
The defendant, an ICE officer, was injured when his pistol fired unintentionally. The defendant gun manufacturer, Sig Sauer, filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that the plaintiff cannot establish its defective design product liability claim because the expert testimony it offered to prove causation was inadmissible and unreliable. The court granted the defendant’s motion.
Vieira v. Think Tank Logistics, LLC (In re Levesque)
In this adversary Chapter 7 proceeding, the trustee sought to avoid the debtor’s transfer of his interest in two corporate entities and either recover the interests or the value of such interests from the defendants. As part of this proceeding, the court was asked to decide on two motions in limine regarding an valuation expert from each side. The motions (Daubert) asked that the experts not be allowed to testify. The court granted in part and denied in part the motions of the parties.
Bankruptcy Court (South Carolina) Grants in Part and Denies in Part Motions to Exclude Experts in Daubert Motions
In this adversary Chapter 7 proceeding, the trustee sought to avoid the debtor’s transfer of his interest in two corporate entities and either recover the interests or the value of such interests from the defendants. As part of this proceeding, the court was asked to decide on two motions in limine regarding an valuation expert from each side. The motions (Daubert) asked that the experts not be allowed to testify. The court granted in part and denied in part the motions of the parties.
Attorney gets Daubert challenge over ESOP employment agreements
In a federal court in Georgia, an employee benefits lawyer prepared a report and was deposed regarding the process by which employment agreements were negotiated as part of a transaction involving an ESOP.
Gamache v. Hogue
In a motion related to a lawsuit asserting ERISA violations under the ESOP plan for the defendants, including the Administrative Committee of Technical Associates of Georgia Inc. ESOP and certain individuals, the defendants moved to exclude the testimony and report of the plaintiffs’ expert, Jeffrey Krenzel. Krenzel was an “employee benefits lawyer” with 21 years’ experience, including eight years as a partner in a firm specializing in ESOP transactions. The court determined that Krenzel was qualified and that his opinions and report were reliable and helpful to the trier of fact.
U.S. District Court in Georgia Allows Testimony of Attorney as to ESOP Transaction Process for Employment Agreements
In a motion related to a lawsuit asserting ERISA violations under the ESOP plan for the defendants, including the Administrative Committee of Technical Associates of Georgia Inc. ESOP and certain individuals, the defendants moved to exclude the testimony and report of the plaintiffs’ expert, Jeffrey Krenzel. Krenzel was an “employee benefits lawyer” with 21 years’ experience, including eight years as a partner in a firm specializing in ESOP transactions. The court determined that Krenzel was qualified and that his opinions and report were reliable and helpful to the trier of fact.
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.
In a damages case, one expert survives Daubert, another does not
In an ongoing damages case in Delaware, the plaintiff had a Daubert motion to exclude the opinions of the defendant’s rebuttal expert.
Ipse dixit nixes some of expert’s opinion
In an economic damages case in Delaware, both sides filed a number of motions to exclude expert testimony, evidence, and arguments.
Delaware Court Grants in Some Cases and Denies in Others Motions to Exclude Expert Witnesses and Certain Evidence to Be Presented
In this ongoing case regarding investment banking services and fees, the court ruled on various motions of the parties to exclude certain testimony from two expert witnesses, one from each side, and to exclude certain evidence to be presented by those witnesses. The court denied the plaintiff’s motions but granted the defendant’s motions.
LCT Capital, LLC v. NGL Energy Partners LP
In this ongoing case regarding investment banking services and fees, the court ruled on various motions of the parties to exclude certain testimony from two expert witnesses, one from each side, and to exclude certain evidence to be presented by those witnesses. The court denied the plaintiff’s motions but granted the defendant’s motions.
Official Comm. of Unsecured Creditors of LB Steel, LLC v. Steelcast Ltd. (In re LB Steel, LLC)
The Bankruptcy Court in this case dealt with an adversary complaint from the Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors. The committee sought to avoid and recover payments the debtor made within the 90 days leading up to the bankruptcy filing to the parent company. For reasons including that the debtor was insolvent during that 90-day period, the court decided in favor of the committee and ordered the payments avoided and ordered the parent company to repay the debtor’s estate.
Bankruptcy Court Orders Parent Company to Repay Payments Within 90 Days of Filing
The Bankruptcy Court in this case dealt with an adversary complaint from the Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors. The committee sought to avoid and recover payments the debtor made within the 90 days leading up to the bankruptcy filing to the parent company. For reasons including that the debtor was insolvent during that 90-day period, the court decided in favor of the committee and ordered the payments avoided and ordered the parent company to repay the debtor’s estate.
Kuzma v. N. Ariz. Healthcare Corp.
The defendants in this qui tam case asked for summary judgment against the plaintiff Relator, who had alleged violations of the False Claims Act as it related to the sale of Surgery and Rehabilitation Centers by the defendants. Relator brought suit against the defendants, alleging they violated the FCA by overpaying the physician-owners of the Summit Center to reward them for past business and to induce future business in violation of the federal Anti-Kickback Statute. The defendants advanced three arguments in favor of summary judgment: (1) the acquisition price paid for the Summit Center was fair market value; (2) Relator had no evidence that the defendants acted with the requisite scienter; and (3) Relator cannot show a causal link between the alleged kickback and the submission of false claims.
U.S. District Court Partially Denies Motion for Summary Judgment Regarding Qui Tam Case on Excess Purchase Price Under the False Claims Act
The defendants in this qui tam case asked for summary judgment against the plaintiff Relator, who had alleged violations of the False Claims Act as it related to the sale of Surgery and Rehabilitation Centers by the defendants. Relator brought suit against the defendants, alleging they violated the FCA by overpaying the physician-owners of the Summit Center to reward them for past business and to induce future business in violation of the federal Anti-Kickback Statute. The defendants advanced three arguments in favor of summary judgment: (1) the acquisition price paid for the Summit Center was fair market value; (2) Relator had no evidence that the defendants acted with the requisite scienter; and (3) Relator cannot show a causal link between the alleged kickback and the submission of false claims.
BV News and Trends July 2021
A monthly roundup of key developments of interest to business valuation experts.
Hitchner reveals tough questions you may get on BV standards
You should be aware of the standards all of the business valuation organizations have issued, not just your own, cautions Jim Hitchner (Financial Valuation Advisors) in the April issue of Hardball With Hitchner.
Sink or Swim: The New World of Virtual Testimony
Most people do not realize how different it is appearing in court through virtual technology compared to being there in person. Fortunately, some attorneys and valuation experts have gone through this experience and they share their advice on how to make the best of it.
Global BVU News and Trends November 2020
Business valuation news from a global perspective.
The Expert Witness Process: Tips for Valuation Practitioners
The author developed and taught the AICPA course in expert witnessing, and he shares his advice for the entire process, from securing the engagement to cross-examination.
From the Bench: 10 Warning Signals of Trouble With a Valuation Expert
It’s always very informative and helpful to listen to judges talk about the valuation cases they hear. At NACVA’s recent Business Valuation and Financial Litigation Super Conference, a panel of judges did just that—and they shared their views of when they detect potential problems with appraisers when they are on the witness stand.
In court, facts are not enough—it’s the nonverbal that counts
If you think that the facts speak for themselves in court, think again, says Deborah Johnson, MC, president of High-Stakes Communication.
Top-notch tips for virtual court appearances
There’s a lot more to making a good appearance in court when you have to testify virtually.