Court excludes valuation expert by mistake
In an Ohio divorce matter, an appellate court has remanded a case back to the trial court because it “abused its discretion” when it excluded a valuation expert’s testimony and report.
Miller v. Miller
In this Ohio divorce case, the trial court did not consider a valuation report of a competent expert the husband submitted. As such, “the trial court erred by sustaining an objection which appellant never made and by rendering judgment without considering all the evidence presented.” The trial court also erred by failing to reserve jurisdiction to modify the spousal maintenance award and not explaining why it refused to do so. The Appellate Court remanded on both of the above issues.
Ohio Trial Court Fails to Consider Expert Testimony—Appellate Court Remands
In this Ohio divorce case, the trial court did not consider a valuation report of a competent expert the husband submitted. As such, “the trial court erred by sustaining an objection which appellant never made and by rendering judgment without considering all the evidence presented.” The trial court also erred by failing to reserve jurisdiction to modify the spousal maintenance award and not explaining why it refused to do so. The Appellate Court remanded on both of the above issues.
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.
In a damages case, one expert survives Daubert, another does not
In an ongoing damages case in Delaware, the plaintiff had a Daubert motion to exclude the opinions of the defendant’s rebuttal expert.
Ipse dixit nixes some of expert’s opinion
In an economic damages case in Delaware, both sides filed a number of motions to exclude expert testimony, evidence, and arguments.
Delaware Court Grants in Some Cases and Denies in Others Motions to Exclude Expert Witnesses and Certain Evidence to Be Presented
In this ongoing case regarding investment banking services and fees, the court ruled on various motions of the parties to exclude certain testimony from two expert witnesses, one from each side, and to exclude certain evidence to be presented by those witnesses. The court denied the plaintiff’s motions but granted the defendant’s motions.
LCT Capital, LLC v. NGL Energy Partners LP
In this ongoing case regarding investment banking services and fees, the court ruled on various motions of the parties to exclude certain testimony from two expert witnesses, one from each side, and to exclude certain evidence to be presented by those witnesses. The court denied the plaintiff’s motions but granted the defendant’s motions.
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.
A Tennessee Appellate Court Affirms the Allowance of a DLOM and Affirms Calculations Under the Income Approach
This case revolved around the value to be paid for a one-third interest in a business partnership for a business that produces and sells flavored “moonshine” liquor. The trial court initially resolved all issues and determined that the plaintiff was entitled to the fair value of his one-third interest in the partnership. Defendant appealed, among other things, the trial court determination of value for his interest. The appellate court remanded for elimination of the discount for lack of control. On this appeal, the plaintiff disagreed with the trial court value and believed the DLOM should also be eliminated. The appellate court affirmed the trial court. The value affirmed was a conclusion of value issued in a summary report.
Boesch v. Holeman (II)
This case revolved around the value to be paid for a one-third interest in a business partnership for a business that produces and sells flavored “moonshine” liquor. The trial court initially resolved all issues and determined that the plaintiff was entitled to the fair value of his one-third interest in the partnership. Defendant appealed, among other things, the trial court determination of value for his interest. The appellate court remanded for elimination of the discount for lack of control. On this appeal, the plaintiff disagreed with the trial court value and believed the DLOM should also be eliminated. The appellate court affirmed the trial court. The value affirmed was a conclusion of value issued in a summary report.
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.”
SEC v. Bluepoint Inv. Counsel
This case dealt with a suit by the SEC against the defendants for alleged violations of the Securities Act. The ruling digested here was a short ruling on motions in limine. The key motion considered here was a motion to exclude evidence of Amiran’s value not known by GTIF (a plaintiff’s entity) when valuations were prepared. The court denied the motion to exclude the SEC’s expert on the basis that she used information that was known or knowable. The court noted that her assumptions can be challenged on cross-examination.
U.S. District Court Rules on Known or Knowable Issue and Allows Testimony of SEC Valuation Expert—Can Be Challenged on Cross-Examination
This case dealt with a suit by the SEC against the defendants for alleged violations of the Securities Act. The ruling digested here was a short ruling on motions in limine. The key motion considered here was a motion to exclude evidence of Amiran’s value not known by GTIF (a plaintiff’s entity) when valuations were prepared. The court denied the motion to exclude the SEC’s expert on the basis that she used information that was known or knowable. The court noted that her assumptions can be challenged on cross-examination.
In re Marriage of Brown
In this Illinois divorce case, the appellate court affirmed the circuit court’s determination of value of the husband’s business by the husband’s expert even though evidence was presented that the expert did not follow the AICPA Business Valuation Standards. Further, the husband’s expert did not consider any enterprise goodwill and used an unorthodox method to determine the value of the business. The wife’s expert asserted that the husband’s expert did not provide a fair market value but rather did a “calculation.” The appellate court also affirmed the circuit court’s decision not to exclude the testimony of the husband’s expert witness.
Illinois Appellate Court Does Not Accept Valuation Including Enterprise Goodwill
In this Illinois divorce case, the appellate court affirmed the circuit court’s determination of value of the husband’s business by the husband’s expert even though evidence was presented that the expert did not follow the AICPA Business Valuation Standards. Further, the husband’s expert did not consider any enterprise goodwill and used an unorthodox method to determine the value of the business. The wife’s expert asserted that the husband’s expert did not provide a fair market value but rather did a “calculation.” The appellate court also affirmed the circuit court’s decision not to exclude the testimony of the husband’s expert witness.