Court-appointed attorney can’t testify on stock gift valuation
In a Hawaii estate matter, one of the founders of the Foodland grocery chain made lifetime gifts of company stock to some of her children.
TAKTL, LLC v. IWR, N. Am., LLC
This case, a breach of construction contract case, again provided a tutorial on the application of FRE 702 and the Daubert rules as to whether a witness qualified to testify. This case was post-Dec. 1, 2023, so the rule application was subject to the clarification of FRE 702 that became effective on that date. The court went in depth into the “fit” requirement, which was: Did the expert adequately apply testimony and a report that “fit” the case at hand, a requirement clarified by the Dec. 1, 2023, changes?
Court Decides on Motions to Exclude Under Post-Dec. 1, 2023, FRE 702
This case, a breach of construction contract case, again provided a tutorial on the application of FRE 702 and the Daubert rules as to whether a witness qualified to testify. This case was post-Dec. 1, 2023, so the rule application was subject to the clarification of FRE 702 that became effective on that date. The court went in depth into the “fit” requirement, which was: Did the expert adequately apply testimony and a report that “fit” the case at hand, a requirement clarified by the Dec. 1, 2023, changes?
Sullivan v. Loden (II)
The U.S. District Court in this case excluded the value of an attorney who was appointed in a related state probate case and testified that the defendant’s valuations were unreliable. The district court determined that the proposed witness was not qualified to testify as to the efficacy of valuations. This case concluded that just because a proposed witness was an “attorney” “respected” as an estate expert did not make him or her qualified under Rule 702 to testify about business valuations when the proposed witness was not qualified in business valuation.
U.S. District Court (Hawaii) Excludes Testimony on Business Value From an Attorney Who Has No Valuation Skills
The U.S. District Court in this case excluded the value of an attorney who was appointed in a related state probate case and testified that the defendant’s valuations were unreliable. The district court determined that the proposed witness was not qualified to testify as to the efficacy of valuations. This case concluded that just because a proposed witness was an “attorney” “respected” as an estate expert did not make him or her qualified under Rule 702 to testify about business valuations when the proposed witness was not qualified in business valuation.
Athea v. Athea
In this divorce case, the Florida appellate court upheld the trial court’s acceptance of the husband’s valuation expert including the exclusion of personal goodwill. The court found the valuation and exclusion well supported by evidence and thereby will not be reversed. The court remanded the determination of monthly income of the wife.
Appellate Court Upholds Exclusion of Personal Goodwill—Well Supported
In this divorce case, the Florida appellate court upheld the trial court’s acceptance of the husband’s valuation expert including the exclusion of personal goodwill. The court found the valuation and exclusion well supported by evidence and thereby will not be reversed. The court remanded the determination of monthly income of the wife.
Noncertified occasional valuer is not a qualified appraiser, per Tax Court
For tax purposes, the most important requirement under the qualified appraisal rules is that the valuation be done by a qualified appraiser. But how much experience is enough? A new case gives some guidance.
Midwest Energy Emissions Corp. & Mes Inc. v. Arthur J. Gallagher & Co.
In this patent infringement and validity matter, the defendants have moved for exclusion of the plaintiffs’ technical expert, who was proffered to testify as to infringement and invalidity of five patents-in-suit. The court granted in part and denied in part the defendants’ motion, which included five assertions as to why the testimony should be excluded.
Patent Infringement Suit Motion to Exclude Expert Witness
In this patent infringement and validity matter, the defendants have moved for exclusion of the plaintiffs’ technical expert, who was proffered to testify as to infringement and invalidity of five patents-in-suit. The court granted in part and denied in part the defendants’ motion, which included five assertions as to why the testimony should be excluded.
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.
Review and Update of BV Standards and Guidance—What You Need to Know
Valuation standards and guidance areas of business valuation are constantly expanding and being updated. The increase in business valuation worldwide has had a lot to do with this expansion, as has the increase in valuation within financial statements worldwide. Jim Alerding will explore the current status of business valuation standards and other guidance documents, including new standards and new areas of discussion and guidance concerning business valuation. The program will provide the attendee with information ...
Discovery dispute over damages expert’s undisclosed work paper
In a discovery dispute, a federal court recently found the defendant had no duty to disclose to the opposing side its expert’s “intermediary” working paper that he used to prepare his damages calculation.
Patent Infringement Case Provides Judge With a Plethora of Daubert Challenges to Rule on
In this patent infringement case, the court ruled on a plethora of Daubert/Rule 702 challenges. The opinion provides an exhaustive list of Daubert-related issues that the court ruled on and provides a good tutorial on the real purposes of Daubert.
Shire ViroPharma Inc. v. CSL Behring LLC
In this patent infringement case, the court ruled on a plethora of Daubert/Rule 702 challenges. The opinion provides an exhaustive list of Daubert-related issues that the court ruled on and provides a good tutorial on the real purposes of Daubert.
Whitesell Corp. v. Electrolux Home Prods.
In this Rule 26 discovery case, court says sanctions are inappropriate where the defendant had no duty to disclose its expert’s “intermediary” working paper; however, sanctions are appropriate related to the expert’s miscalculations; court finds expert testimony is admissible under Daubert.
Expert’s Damages Testimony Prompts Motion for Sanctions and Motion to Exclude Under Daubert
In this Rule 26 discovery case, court says sanctions are inappropriate where the defendant had no duty to disclose its expert’s “intermediary” working paper; however, sanctions are appropriate related to the expert’s miscalculations; court finds expert testimony is admissible under Daubert.
Expert’s Damages Calculation Based on Extensive Experience in Field Is Reliable, Court Finds
Court admits survey evidence, finding expert’s methodology conformed to accepted principles in the field and noting that technical objections go toward weight; court also admits both parties’ damages experts, finding they had extensive experience in the field and were both qualified; questions as to reliability of method “can be explored at trial.”
Geiger v. Creative Impact Inc.
Court admits survey evidence, finding expert’s methodology conformed to accepted principles in the field and noting that technical objections go toward weight; court also admits both parties’ damages experts, finding they had extensive experience in the field and were both qualified; questions as to reliability of method “can be explored at trial.”
Parties fight over notes-containing expert report: draft or final version?
Several sessions at the recent AICPA conference in Las Vegas highlighted the importance of expert discovery in litigation and noted that draft reports continue to be a hot-button issue.
IceMOS Tech. Corp. v. Omron Corp.
In contract dispute, court denies defendant’s Daubert motions, finding plaintiff’s experts are qualified based on extensive experience in relevant industry; experts could provide testimony relevant to surviving lost development support costs claim and their testimony is not unreliable as of now.
Plaintiff’s Projections Fail to Meet New York Test for Lost Profits or Lost Business Value
A breach of contract case in which the plaintiff asked for various types of economic damages is noteworthy for the court s extended discussion of what the plaintiff must show under New York law to make a case for lost profits. The court explained that the hurdle was particularly high for a new business or a business trying to break into a new market considering the company s lack of a financial track record. Damages must be ...
County of Maricopa v. Office Depot Inc.
In denying defendant’s pretrial motion to exclude plaintiff’s expert testimony under Daubert and Rule 37, which specifies sanctions for failure to make disclosures or cooperate in discovery, court finds note-containing version of expert report is a draft not subject to discovery under Rule 26.
Expert Report Containing Notes Qualifies as Draft Not Subject to Discovery
In denying defendant’s pretrial motion to exclude plaintiff’s expert testimony under Daubert and Rule 37, which specifies sanctions for failure to make disclosures or cooperate in discovery, court finds note-containing version of expert report is a draft not subject to discovery under Rule 26.