Expand the following panels for additional search options.

Expert’s Damages Calculation Based on Extensive Experience in Field Is Reliable, Court Finds

Court admits survey evidence, finding expert’s methodology conformed to accepted principles in the field and noting that technical objections go toward weight; court also admits both parties’ damages experts, finding they had extensive experience in the field and were both qualified; questions as to reliability of method “can be explored at trial.”

Geiger v. Creative Impact Inc.

Court admits survey evidence, finding expert’s methodology conformed to accepted principles in the field and noting that technical objections go toward weight; court also admits both parties’ damages experts, finding they had extensive experience in the field and were both qualified; questions as to reliability of method “can be explored at trial.”

Court Clarifies Application of Rule 703 to Expert Testimony

Court upholds lower court ruling that there was no mismanagement of corporate assets; plaintiff failed to show excessive officer compensation and was properly precluded from using testifying expert to introduce another appraiser’s report on excessive rent.

Springer v. Library Store

Court upholds lower court ruling that there was no mismanagement of corporate assets; plaintiff failed to show excessive officer compensation and was properly precluded from using testifying expert to introduce another appraiser’s report on excessive rent.

Expert’s Exclusion Dooms ‘Frozen Market’ Theory and Loss of Value Claims

Court excludes expert damages calculation where expert relied solely on “temporal relationship” to show causation between loss of value in plaintiff’s business and defendants’ actions and did not account for alternative explanation for plaintiff’s loss.

Expert’s Exclusion Dooms ‘Frozen Market’ Theory and Loss of Value Claims

Court excludes expert damages calculation where expert relied solely on “temporal relationship” to show causation between loss of value in plaintiff’s business and defendants’ actions and did not account for alternative explanation for plaintiff’s loss.

TiVo Research & Analytics, Inc. v. TNS Media Research

Court excludes expert damages calculation where expert relied solely on “temporal relationship” to show causation between loss of value in plaintiff’s business and defendants’ actions and did not account for alternative explanation for plaintiff’s loss.

High Court Dissent Rebukes Chancery’s Analysis in Option Valuation Case

In medical company valuation case, high court affirms award to option holders based on deference owed to trial court’s findings of historical fact; dissent says Chancery’s dismissal ...

Why Del. Chancery rejects merger price in 'Dell' statutory appraisal action

It decided to give no weight to the final merger price—$13.75 per share, and a special $0.13 dividend issued to all shareholders—but rely exclusively on its own post-transaction DCF analysis to determine the fair value of the company. In so doing, the court deviated from a number of Chancery decisions—several issued in 2015—that found the deal price was the most reliable indicator of the company’s fair value.

Court admits expert's anti-'Georgia-Pacific' royalty calculation

There is no absolute requirement to develop a reasonable royalty based on the Georgia-Pacific framework. That's the takeaway from a Daubert ruling in which the court denied the defendant's motion to preclude the testimony of the opposing damages expert, who determined a reasonable royalty based on market data instead of the customary Georgia-Pacific factors.

Cdx Holdings, Inc. v. Fox (Fox II)

In medical company valuation case, high court affirms award to option holders based on deference owed to trial court’s findings of historical fact; dissent says Chancery’s dismissal of board members’ valuation testimony evinces Chancery’s hindsight bias.

High Court Dissent Rebukes Chancery’s Analysis in Option Valuation Case

In medical company valuation case, high court affirms award to option holders based on deference owed to trial court’s findings of historical fact; dissent says Chancery’s dismissal ...

NY fair value ruling deals blow to DLOM

The case featured experts whose professional backgrounds and valuation approaches could hardly be more dissimilar. Their value determinations were light-years apart. In trying to make sense of the conflicting testimony and achieve a plausible and fair result, the court decided it could not totally trust either valuation. Although it adopted the defense expert's valuation, it made two consequential changes to it. One was getting rid of the expert's admittedly high and insufficiently explained 35% discount for lack of marketability.

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.

‘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.

Court Validates Zero Goodwill for Naturopathic Practice

State high court affirms trial court’s determination that husband’s naturopathic practice had zero goodwill value based solely on husband’s testimony that a similar practice in the area failed to attract a buyer despite being on the market for a year.

Failure to Test Causation Narrative Clouds Analysis of Lost Profits

Court strikes parts of lost profits opinion, finding expert adopted plaintiff’s causation theory, “pinning the company’s overall financial performance” on defendants’ allegedly defective crane without offering supporting data or methodology to test theory ...

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.

FRE 702 Ruling Puts Expert in ‘Uncommon Position’

Court affirms magistrate judge’s decision to exclude expert’s ultimate conclusions but to admit his factual statements; under Rule 702, he had the specialized knowledge to provide background information helpful to court’s understanding of the evidence.

1 - 25 of 89 results