Damages Expert’s ‘Before/After’ Lost Profits Analysis Bolsters Plaintiff’s Defamation Case
In defamation and business disparagement case against former employer, appeals court affirms jury award to cardiovascular surgeon compensating for injury to reputation and lost profits; expert’s before/after analysis was supported by evidence, and expert ruled out other causes for lost business.
Mem’l Hermann Health Sys. v. Gomez
In defamation and business disparagement case against former employer, appeals court affirms jury award to cardiovascular surgeon compensating for injury to reputation and lost profits; expert’s before/after analysis was supported by evidence, and expert ruled out other causes for lost business.
BVU News and Trends July 2019
A monthly roundup of key developments of interest to business valuation experts.
Willamette gives insights into shareholder litigation
The Spring 2019 Insights from Willamette Management Associates focuses on shareholder litigation and is edited by Kevin M. Zanni.
Evolving Issues in Proving Lost Profits in Commercial Litigation
The authors provide a formal model of lost profits with a special focus on measurement of expenses, how “time” is a factor, and special efforts the expert needs to make to reduce the chances of failing a Daubert challenge.
BVU News and Trends April 2019
A monthly roundup of key developments of interest to business valuation experts.
Experts comment on recent Brundle ESOP decision
In its recent Brundle opinion (see last week’s coverage), the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals, in describing the major actors in the case, included a quote (not attributed) that the ESOP world was “a very incestuous community.”
It’s not just about FMV, Brundle ESOP appeals court ruling shows
“Fair market value” is not the only consideration when it comes evaluating the performance of the ESOP trustee, the 4th Circuit made clear in its recent ruling, on which we reported here last week and which represents another milestone in ESOP case law.
4th Circuit upholds Brundle ESOP valuation and damages findings
The 4th Circuit Court of Appeals just affirmed the district court’s ruling against the trustee in the intensely contested Brundle v. Wilmington Trust ESOP case, including the district court’s valuation and damages findings.
Economic damages culminate suit over war journalist’s extrajudicial killing
A civil suit arising out of the “deliberated” killing of a well-respected American war correspondent illustrates that valuation and damages issues play a critical role in most litigation.
Valuing IP associated with influencer marketing
Social media has transformed the “nobodies” of the past into new “somebodies” who have influence over the online audience.
Post-trial briefs in Vinoskey ESOP trial point to fierce valuation fight
The DOL’s aggressive oversight strategy concerning ESOPs has led to a number of controversial lawsuits, including, most recently, the Acosta v. Vinoskey case, which, in the past few months, went to trial over the DOL's overpayment claim.
My Imagination v. M.Z. Berger & Co. (II)
Court denies plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration, affirming earlier finding that the expert did not offer an opinion as to damages for loss of business value; expert never offered any opinion of business’s value at any time, court says.
2018 Key Business Valuation and Damages Cases
Choices for the most interesting and pivotal court cases of 2018 involving business valuation issues.
Cargotec Corp. v. Logan Industries
Appeals court majority strikes down lost profits and diminished business value awards, finding plaintiff failed to show causation and its damages expert based his calculations on management’s business plan without substantiating the plan’s underlying (unreasonable) gross profit goals.
Court’s Majority Says Expert’s Reliance on Management Projections Was Unreasonable
Appeals court majority strikes down lost profits and diminished business value awards, finding plaintiff failed to show causation and its damages expert based his calculations on management’s business plan without substantiating the plan’s underlying (unreasonable) gross profit goals.
Failure to explain inputs gets expert excluded under Daubert
If more proof is necessary to show that courts across all legal fields dive deep into the details of valuation testimony, a recent damages case that arose in the context of a condemnation proceeding should do the trick.
Expert’s inability to defend income analysis ‘is decidedly troubling,’ court says
Judges are alert to incongruities in valuations, as is clear from a recent condemnation case in which landowners hired three experts to calculate the compensation owed to them.
Court Rejects Expert’s Reliance on Other Celebrity Royalty Agreements to Develop Damages Analysis
In IP case, appeals court upholds exclusion of expert testimony; one expert’s damages analysis was based on speculative assumptions as to link between increase in defendant’s revenue and infringement; second expert’s analysis was inadmissible, hinging on first expert’s unreliable opinion.
Olive v. General Nutrition Centers
In IP case, appeals court upholds exclusion of expert testimony; one expert’s damages analysis was based on speculative assumptions as to link between increase in defendant’s revenue and infringement; second expert’s analysis was inadmissible, hinging on first expert’s unreliable opinion.
Available Remedies for Trade Secret Damages
An excerpt from the recently released Comprehensive Guide to Economic Damages, 5th edition (Nancy Fannon and Jonathan Dunitz, editors).
Court Concludes Plaintiff Cannot Satisfy Three-Part New York Lost Profits Test
Court says plaintiff fails New York test for lost profits; plaintiff lacks coherent damages theory and, by its own admission, is unable to do more than speculate about future profitability; expert calculation represents “the sort of conjecture the reasonable certainty standard prohibits.”
MY Imagination v. M.Z. Berger & Co. (I)
Court says plaintiff fails New York test for lost profits; plaintiff lacks coherent damages theory and, by its own admission, is unable to do more than speculate about future profitability; expert calculation represents “the sort of conjecture the reasonable certainty standard prohibits.”
Meridian Mfg. v. C&B Mfg.
Court admits expert opinion that reasonable royalty cannot exceed cost of developing noninfringing alternative because opinion is based on facts of the case; court excludes opposing expert’s royalty because he failed to assess comparability of selected licenses to patented technology.
Underdeveloped Comparability Analysis Means Exclusion of Reasonable Royalty Opinion
Court admits expert opinion that reasonable royalty cannot exceed cost of developing noninfringing alternative because opinion is based on facts of the case; court excludes opposing expert’s royalty because he failed to assess comparability of selected licenses to patented technology.