Expand the following panels for additional search options.

Revised Rule 702’s sharper teeth bared in new case

In an Illinois case, expert witnesses were excluded from testifying under the revised Rule 702, the federal rule of evidence, that went into effect this past December.

Can a neutral valuation expert move over to one side?

That’s what happened in a North Carolina divorce case.

Sneed v. Sneed

In this North Carolina appellate divorce case, the court affirmed the trial court decisions, including the determination of value of the husband’s law firm interest. The witness for the wife, who was originally a court-appointed expert, testified as to the value of the law practice and included his analysis of personal-versus-entity goodwill. Both courts included all goodwill in the marital estate as per North Carolina case law. The expert witness apparently submitted a calculation of value for his testimony.

North Carolina Court of Appeals Affirms Trial Court as to Inclusion of Personal Goodwill

In this North Carolina appellate divorce case, the court affirmed the trial court decisions, including the determination of value of the husband’s law firm interest. The witness for the wife, who was originally a court-appointed expert, testified as to the value of the law practice and included his analysis of personal-versus-entity goodwill. Both courts included all goodwill in the marital estate as per North Carolina case law. The expert witness apparently submitted a calculation of value for his testimony.

Key Points From Hitchner’s Annual BV Update

A recap of Jim Hitchner’s look at the major issues in BV over the past year, including long-term growth rates, the three-stage DCF, normalizing the risk-free rate, cost of capital, plagiarism, lack of liquidity on a 100% interest, and more.

BV News and Trends March 2024

A monthly roundup of key developments of interest to business valuation experts.

Business as usual (so far) under tougher Rule 702

The first reported appellate decision to cite the new Rule 702 changes has appeared, but there’s no sea change to report.

Hitchner’s annual review of need-to-know BV topics

Over 500 attendees listened to Jim Hitchner (Valuation Products and Services) do his annual review of recent need-to-know concepts, data, models, and methods in business valuation. Here are a few key points from the two-hour webinar.

The Wisdom of the Pastrami Sandwich: The Secret Sauce for Delivering Compelling Expert Testimony

In this workshop, forensic expert Michael Kaplan and jury trial consultant and communications specialist Jesse Wilson identify and explore the powerful storytelling skills that transform technically accurate, matter-of-fact testimony into a story that will persuade the jurors. Through the expert testimony of our attendee volunteers, Jesse and Michael demonstrate the incorporation of these skills into expert testimony, transforming otherwise factual and accurate testimony into powerful stories that become compelling expert testimony.

BVLaw Review: The Top Valuation Cases of 2023

The BVLaw platform added approximately 70 cases during 2023, bringing the total to about 4,300 cases in the database. The cases are all related in some way to valuation, economic damages and lost profits, and other litigation. This article is a rundown of some of the more important cases for 2023.

Court figures fair value of startup biotech for dissenters

In a dissenting shareholder case in a federal district court in Georgia, neither the Black-Scholes method nor the prior transactions method convinced a court of the value of a startup biotech company.

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.

Abeome Corp., Inc. v. Stevens

The parties did not agree on a fair value of the shares in a dissenting shareholder suit. The court, using information in evidence, including expert witness testimony from both parties’ experts, determined the fair value.

U.S. District Court Determines Fair Value of Shares

The parties did not agree on a fair value of the shares in a dissenting shareholder suit. The court, using information in evidence, including expert witness testimony from both parties’ experts, determined the fair value.

Storytelling for the Expert Witness (A BVR Workshop)

In this webinar, forensic expert Michael Kaplan and jury trial consultant and communications specialist Jesse Wilson introduce you to the powerful storytelling skills that will transform technically accurate, matter-of-fact testimony into a compelling and persuasive story.

Testimony of damages expert excluded due to no basis

In a Pennsylvania breach of contract case, the plaintiff’s damages expert was to testify as to lost profits.

Lack of BV credential triggers a Daubert challenge

In a bankruptcy case in South Carolina, the defendants moved to exclude evidence of an expert, which included his exhibits and valuation report.

New Rule 702 crackdown already impacting expert witnesses

Although they don’t officially go into effect until December 1, expert witnesses are already feeling the effects of the changes designed to strengthen Rule 702, which is the federal rule of evidence regarding testifying experts.

Paramount Fin. Commc’ns, Inc. v. Broadridge Inv’r Commc’n Sols., Inc.

In a post-judgment order and opinion, the court struck the testimony of the plaintiff’s damages expert witness and ordered a new trial on damages. The plaintiff moved for reconsideration of the order. The court denied the plaintiff’s motion in this breach of contract case. There was insufficient evidence in the record to support the damages calculation.

On Reconsideration, Court Affirms Decision to Exclude Testimony of Damages Expert

In a post-judgment order and opinion, the court struck the testimony of the plaintiff’s damages expert witness and ordered a new trial on damages. The plaintiff moved for reconsideration of the order. The court denied the plaintiff’s motion in this breach of contract case. There was insufficient evidence in the record to support the damages calculation.

Gore v. Gore

The key element in the appeal of this divorce case revolved around the valuation of the wife’s business, selling dietary supplements online. The wife failed to produce in a timely manner the documents the husband requested. She also failed to timely declare an expert who could testify as to the value of her business. “Wife appealed the circuit court’s award of monetary sanctions and the court’s exclusion of her and her expert’s testimony regarding her company’s valuation, as well as her attempts to testify regarding the value of her business. Husband cross-appealed the court’s distribution of marital property and the resultant monetary award.”

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.

Appellate Court (Maryland) Affirms Trial Court’s Decision to Exclude Testimony of Wife’s Expert

The key element in the appeal of this divorce case revolved around the valuation of the wife’s business, selling dietary supplements online. The wife failed to produce in a timely manner the documents the husband requested. She also failed to timely declare an expert who could testify as to the value of her business. “Wife appealed the circuit court’s award of monetary sanctions and the court’s exclusion of her and her expert’s testimony regarding her company’s valuation, as well as her attempts to testify regarding the value of her business. Husband cross-appealed the court’s distribution of marital property and the resultant monetary award.”

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.

1 - 25 of 136 results