Expert’s Damages Opinion Specific Enough for Class Certification Stage
In a securities case, court applies Daubert analysis to plaintiff expert’s market efficiency opinion and event study; expert is qualified even without academic background, and his damages opinion is sufficiently specific to facts of the case and reliable.
Kardash v. Commissioner (III)
Appeals court upholds Tax Court’s transfer liability rulings; there was constructive fraud in that dividend payments to appellant were not compensation for services rendered but were part of a series of transfers leading to company’s insolvency.
Appeals Court Upholds Insolvency Rulings in Transfer Liability Case
Appeals court upholds Tax Court’s transfer liability rulings; there was constructive fraud in that dividend payments to appellant were not compensation for services rendered but were part of a series of transfers leading to company’s insolvency.
Misunderstanding of Facts Results in Overvaluation of Fuel Supply Rights
Debtor’s fuel supply rights had value either in form of an implied contract, customer relationship, or simply an income stream, court says; court does not assign specific value but finds appraiser overstated its value due to misunderstanding of key facts.
Help needed with academic research on Big Data
Please take a short, five-minute survey on the use of Big Data in forensic accounting in preventing and detecting fraud. The University of Memphis is conducting research.
Trustee’s Attack on Merger Projections Fails to Resonate With Court
Court says trustee fails to show debtor was insolvent under any applicable financial condition tests; contemporaneous industry analysis and valuations by financing banks belie claim that management projections in support of merger were unreasonable.
Weisfelner v. Blavatnik (In re Lyondell Chem. Co.)
Court says trustee fails to show debtor was insolvent under any applicable financial condition tests; contemporaneous industry analysis and valuations by financing banks belie claim that management projections in support of merger were unreasonable.
Reasonable Compensation Analysis Ignores Objective Evidence, Tax Court Says
Tax Court dismisses taxpayer expert’s reasonable compensation analysis as not helpful to trier of fact; court points to failure to consider objective evidence and detects willingness to “validate and confirm” the amounts reported on taxpayer’s returns.
Expert’s Damages Opinion Specific Enough for Class Certification Stage
In a securities case, court applies Daubert analysis to plaintiff expert’s market efficiency opinion and event study; expert is qualified even without academic background, and his damages opinion is sufficiently specific to facts of the case and reliable.
Willis v. Big Lots, Inc.
In a securities case, court applies Daubert analysis to plaintiff expert’s market efficiency opinion and event study; expert is qualified even without academic background, and his damages opinion is sufficiently specific to facts of the case and reliable.
Misunderstanding of Facts Results in Overvaluation of Fuel Supply Rights
Debtor’s fuel supply rights had value either in form of an implied contract, customer relationship, or simply an income stream, court says; court does not assign specific value but finds appraiser overstated its value due to misunderstanding of key facts.
r2 Advisors, LLC v. Equitable Oil Purchasing Co. (In re Red Eagle Oil, Inc.)
Debtor’s fuel supply rights had value either in form of an implied contract, customer relationship, or simply an income stream, court says; court does not assign specific value but finds appraiser overstated its value due to misunderstanding of key facts.
Reasonable Compensation Analysis Ignores Objective Evidence, Tax Court Says
Tax Court dismisses taxpayer expert’s reasonable compensation analysis as not helpful to trier of fact; court points to failure to consider objective evidence and detects willingness to “validate and confirm” the amounts reported on taxpayer’s returns.
Transupport, Inc. v. Commissioner
Tax Court dismisses taxpayer expert’s reasonable compensation analysis as not helpful to trier of fact; court points to failure to consider objective evidence and detects willingness to “validate and confirm” the amounts reported on taxpayer’s returns.
Expert Prevails by Documenting Adherence to Valuation Standards
In fraud case, court rejects Daubert challenge, finding expert sufficiently identified assumptions and estimates she relied on and properly re-created subject company’s financial situation based on AICPA standards and authoritative valuation treatises.
Is Expert Opinion Based Solely on Experience Admissible?
Court rules expert testimony based solely on experience may be admissible under Federal Rule of Evidence 702, notwithstanding Daubert requirements.
Expert Prevails by Documenting Adherence to Valuation Standards
In fraud case, court rejects Daubert challenge, finding expert sufficiently identified assumptions and estimates she relied on and properly re-created subject company’s financial situation based on AICPA standards and authoritative valuation treatises.
MSKP Oak Grove, LLC v. Venuto
In fraud case, court rejects Daubert challenge, finding expert sufficiently identified assumptions and estimates she relied on and properly re-created subject company’s financial situation based on AICPA standards and authoritative valuation treatises.
2nd Circuit Chafes at Wholesale Exclusion of Loss Causation Testimony
Second Circuit says district court “went astray” when, under Daubert, it excluded entire loss causation and damages testimony of plaintiffs’ expert instead of just eliminating unreliable part; appeals court ruling revives securities fraud class action.
Is Expert Opinion Based Solely on Experience Admissible?
Court rules expert testimony based solely on experience may be admissible under Federal Rule of Evidence 702, notwithstanding Daubert requirements.
Broyles v. Cantor Fitzgerald & Co.
Court rules expert testimony based solely on experience may be admissible under Federal Rule of Evidence 702, notwithstanding Daubert requirements.
Wholesale exclusion of expert testimony contravenes Daubert, 2nd Circuit says
One error in an extensive economic analysis does not automatically call into question the entire expert opinion, the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals recently said in the context of a securities fraud lawsuit involving the drug giant Pfizer. With this pronouncement the appeals court resuscitated a class action that had died after the district court excluded the plaintiffs' loss causation and damages expert under Daubert based on errors in the expert's event study. Deprived of the testimony, the plaintiffs were unable to prove two critical elements of their claim.
Showers v. Pfizer, Inc. (In re Pfizer Inc. Sec. Litig.)
Second Circuit says district court “went astray” when, under Daubert, it excluded entire loss causation and damages testimony of plaintiffs’ expert instead of just eliminating unreliable part; appeals court ruling revives securities fraud class action.
Tax Court Explains Valuation Method Behind Solvency Ruling
In transferee liability case, Tax Court reconsiders parts of its original solvency determination and clarifies that its analysis relies largely on IRS expert’s market multiple valuation, rather than the asset accumulation value the expert had recommended.
Kardash v. Commissioner (II)
In transferee liability case, Tax Court reconsiders parts of its original solvency determination and clarifies that its analysis relies largely on IRS expert’s market multiple valuation, rather than the asset accumulation value the expert had recommended.
- 1
- 2
- 3 (current)
- 4
- 5