In re Hebert
In this New Hampshire divorce appeal, the husband appealed the trial court’s property division, the awarding of 13 years of alimony, awarding of 100% of the proceeds of the sale of residences, and awarding 50% of the value of the husband’s business and the real estate where the business was located. The Supreme Court of New Hampshire affirmed in part and remanded in part.
New Hampshire Supreme Court Affirms in Part and Vacates in Part and Remands Divorce Trial Court—Husband Fails to Provide Support for Expenses
In this New Hampshire divorce appeal, the husband appealed the trial court’s property division, the awarding of 13 years of alimony, awarding of 100% of the proceeds of the sale of residences, and awarding 50% of the value of the husband’s business and the real estate where the business was located. The Supreme Court of New Hampshire affirmed in part and remanded in part.
U.S. Appellate Court Affirms Witness’s Exclusion—Cites New Rule 702 but Follows Abrogated Precedent Instead
The district court in this case excluded the testimony of the plaintiffs’ medical expert witness in this medical malpractice case, citing Rule 702, resulting in a summary judgment against the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs appealed, but the circuit court affirmed the district court, citing Rule 702 in affirming the exclusion of the plaintiffs’ witness. Even though the 2023 amended Rule 702 was cited, the circuit court reverted back to the pre-amended Rule 702 to bolster its exclusion of the witness.
Rodriguez v. Hosp. San Cristobal, Inc.
The district court in this case excluded the testimony of the plaintiffs’ medical expert witness in this medical malpractice case, citing Rule 702, resulting in a summary judgment against the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs appealed, but the circuit court affirmed the district court, citing Rule 702 in affirming the exclusion of the plaintiffs’ witness. Even though the 2023 amended Rule 702 was cited, the circuit court reverted back to the pre-amended Rule 702 to bolster its exclusion of the witness.
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.
Expert can’t testify regarding legal and state of mind opinions
In a case in Delaware Chancery Court concerning breach of fiduciary duty surrounding an acquisition, a well-known expert has had the court partially exclude his testimony.
In re Columbia Pipeline Group
“In plaintiffs' action against an energy company for aiding and abetting alleged breaches of fiduciary duty by the officers of a pipeline company, the court granted a motion in limine to exclude an expert's report under Del. R. Evid. 702(a) because it expressed a legal opinion on whether the fiduciaries' conduct was reasonable. [Also], [t]he expert report impermissibly expressed opinions about state of mind, which were factual determinations for the court to make. [Finally] [t]he expert offered impermissible opinions about whether the parties believed their agreement was breached, because he interpreted the agreement using extrinsic evidence.”
Expert Excluded for Offering Legal and State of Mind Opinions in Delaware
“In plaintiffs' action against an energy company for aiding and abetting alleged breaches of fiduciary duty by the officers of a pipeline company, the court granted a motion in limine to exclude an expert's report under Del. R. Evid. 702(a) because it expressed a legal opinion on whether the fiduciaries' conduct was reasonable. [Also], [t]he expert report impermissibly expressed opinions about state of mind, which were factual determinations for the court to make. [Finally] [t]he expert offered impermissible opinions about whether the parties believed their agreement was breached, because he interpreted the agreement using extrinsic evidence.”
Discovery dispute over damages expert’s undisclosed work paper
In a discovery dispute, a federal court recently found the defendant had no duty to disclose to the opposing side its expert’s “intermediary” working paper that he used to prepare his damages calculation.
Whitesell Corp. v. Electrolux Home Prods.
In this Rule 26 discovery case, court says sanctions are inappropriate where the defendant had no duty to disclose its expert’s “intermediary” working paper; however, sanctions are appropriate related to the expert’s miscalculations; court finds expert testimony is admissible under Daubert.
Expert’s Damages Testimony Prompts Motion for Sanctions and Motion to Exclude Under Daubert
In this Rule 26 discovery case, court says sanctions are inappropriate where the defendant had no duty to disclose its expert’s “intermediary” working paper; however, sanctions are appropriate related to the expert’s miscalculations; court finds expert testimony is admissible under Daubert.
Key Issues in Valuing Owner Operated Small Businesses
Owner-operated business must be considered in a different framework than many other types of business. Everything from hypothetical transaction (asset sale versus equity interest) to financial objectives (minimize taxable income versus maximize shareholder value) must be considered from a different perspective. Join David Coffman as he discusses rate of return and personal goodwill through this unique lens.
Court Finds Delayed Disclosure of Expert’s Complete Report ‘Substantially Justified’
Court denies defendants’ Rule 37 motion to exclude opposing expert’s report and testimony; court notes reason for expert report’s ...
Wright v. Old Gringo, Inc.
Court denies defendants’ Rule 37 motion to exclude opposing expert’s report and testimony; court notes reason for expert report’s lateness was defendants’ litigation strategy, including efforts to thwart production of financial information vital for valuation of company and damages calculation.
Reasonable Compensation for Closely Held Businesses + RCReports Demo
Determining reasonable compensation for closely held small and medium-sized businesses is not a magical or mysterious process. In fact, it is a straight forward process that relies on a basic understanding of the three different methods for determining reasonable compensation and when and where they apply. Join Stephen Kirkland and Paul Hamann for this rewarding and rich session. Practitioners armed with this knowledge and the proper tools can easily determine reasonable compensation for any company.
Michigan Court Explains How to Handle Retained Earnings in Divorce Cases
In deciding whether, in divorce, retained earnings in a closely held company that is separate property are includible in marital estate, appeals court creates presumption against inclusion and requires trial court to perform totality of circumstances review.
Jensen v. Jensen
In deciding whether, in divorce, retained earnings in a closely held company that is separate property are includible in marital estate, appeals court creates presumption against inclusion and requires trial court to perform totality of circumstances review.
SEC’s Daubert Challenge to Securities Valuation Testimony Fizzles
In an SEC case requiring valuation of restricted securities, court admits most of the testimony of parties’ experts; experts need not be specialists in given field and need not demonstrate familiarity with USPAP or SSVS to qualify under Daubert, court fin ...
SEC’s Daubert Challenge to Securities Valuation Testimony Fizzles
In an SEC case requiring valuation of restricted securities, court admits most of the testimony of parties’ experts; experts need not be specialists in given field and need not demonstrate familiarity with USPAP or SSVS to qualify under Daubert, court fin ...
SEC v. Nutmeg Group, LLC
In an SEC case requiring valuation of restricted securities, court admits most of the testimony of parties’ experts; experts need not be specialists in given field and need not demonstrate familiarity with USPAP or SSVS to qualify under Daubert, court fin ...
Ambiguous expert report prompts order to revalue minority interest
A recent Wisconsin case illustrates that a shareholder agreement in place is no guarantee for a smooth buyout of the minority shareholder. The case also includes a caution to experts to strive for clarity in their expert reports.
Damages Calculation Admissible Under Facts Available to PI Expert
Court says P.I. expert properly based economic loss determination on plaintiff’s actual work situation at time of expert report instead of speculating about future earnings; testimony is helpful to jury because it explains issues not usually encountered.
Compromised Section 1031 appraisal sinks Exelon tax strategy for fossil fuel power plant sale
U.S. Tax Court Judge David Laro frequently has cautioned experts not to give in to hiring attorneys who want to shape the appraisal. Although federal and state discovery rules offer some protection for attorney-expert communication, there is a risk of exposure and with it a risk of damage to the expert’s work product and reputation. A recent Section 1031 case, which Judge Laro handled, illustrates what happens when the communication is discovered.
Berman v. Unimin Corp.
Court says P.I. expert properly based economic loss determination on plaintiff’s actual work situation at time of expert report instead of speculating about future earnings; testimony is helpful to jury because it explains issues not usually encountered.