The Long Arm of the Bankruptcy Court: Valuation in Fraudulent Transfer Matters
When a company files for bankruptcy, the first analysis is to determine what the company has and what the company owes as of the filing date. Next is a thorough analysis of what had been paid out of the company before the filing date to determine whether such payments can be clawed back into the estate for the benefit of creditors. Payments made within 90 days of the filing may automatically be considered preferential. Beyond ...
Court Denies Motion to Exclude Rebuttal Testimony of Damages
This case concerned the purchase of a historic steam plant in downtown St. Louis. The claims included breach of contract, fraudulent conveyance, and tortious interference, among others. This particular case dealt with a motion in limine to exclude rebuttal testimony from the expert for the counterclaim defendants regarding damages put forth by the counterclaim plaintiffs. The court denied the motion.
SL EC, LLC v. Ashley Energy, LLC
This case concerned the purchase of a historic steam plant in downtown St. Louis. The claims included breach of contract, fraudulent conveyance, and tortious interference, among others. This particular case dealt with a motion in limine to exclude rebuttal testimony from the expert for the counterclaim defendants regarding damages put forth by the counterclaim plaintiffs. The court denied the motion.
Expert report proves best defense against Daubert offense
In litigation, attacks on expert opinions are par for the course, but a sound expert report can ward off a Daubert challenge and clear the way to admission at trial, as a recent fraud case illustrates.
In re Greater Southeast Community Hospital Corp. (III)
In fraudulent conveyance action, court admits errors in its own discounted cash flow valuation of hospital, but denies motion to reconsider, finding the trustee has the burden to present competent expert evidence regarding reasonably equivalent value.
Valuation 'Experts' Excluded as Unreliable Based on Numerous Errors in Methodology and Inability to Explain Conclusions
In this bankruptcy adversary proceeding, the trustees as plaintiffs sought to prove that the defendants—Bairnco Corp., Keene Corp., and the individual managers of the companies—had engaged in a series of fraudulent conveyances among subsidiaries to protect assets from the reach of asbestos claimants.
Lippe v. Bairnco Corp. (I)
In this bankruptcy adversary proceeding, the trustees as plaintiffs sought to prove that the defendants—Bairnco Corp., Keene Corp., and the individual managers of the companies—had engaged in a series of fraudulent conveyances among subsidiaries to protect assets from the reach of asbestos claimants.