Use of Forensic Evidence in a Lost Profits Case
Financial forensics experts are often called upon to measure the lost profits a business suffered as a result of the actions of another party. The measurement typically compares the profits of the company had the defendant not acted inappropriately to the profits that the company actually realized. Because lost profits measurement involves the calculation of the value of something that should have happened but did not, the process must incorporate assumptions and significant reliance upon ...
Calculating But-For Profits
Do you feel like being asked to calculate but-for-profits feels like an engagement in another dimension? Calculating the position the harmed party would have been in “but for” the alleged acts is an advanced skill for appraisers. Join expert and contributing author to The Comprehensive Guide to Economic Damages, Stacey Udell, for a discussion of different strategies to determine net lost profits including the critical step of removing incremental costs that did not occur. Every ...
Calculating Damages for Early-Stage Companies
Measuring lost profits damages for new or early-stage businesses can be a daunting task. Traditional damage analyses that rely on historical results are often meaningless since, by definition, startup companies usually lack a track record of operating results. Without an operating history for measuring lost profits, the damages expert walks a thin line between speculation and reasoned analysis. Under most circumstances, to be admissible evidence, damage analyses require a relevant and reliable factual basis. These ...
U.S. Appellate Court Rules Sufficient Evidence to Support Future Damages
In this partnership dispute, the 11th Circuit U.S. Appellate Court affirmed the district court and ruled that trial testimony of witnesses provided specific evidence that an energy utility company needed technicians the partnership provided before the disassociation and was not likely to change in the future. Damages were deemed “reasonably certain.” The defendants’ argument that, without an equitable accounting, the damages were too speculative, was waived because it was first raised post-verdict.
WL All. LLC v. Precision Testing Grp. Inc.
In this partnership dispute, the 11th Circuit U.S. Appellate Court affirmed the district court and ruled that trial testimony of witnesses provided specific evidence that an energy utility company needed technicians the partnership provided before the disassociation and was not likely to change in the future. Damages were deemed “reasonably certain.” The defendants’ argument that, without an equitable accounting, the damages were too speculative, was waived because it was first raised post-verdict.
Great Hill Equity Partners IV, LP v. SIG Growth Equity Fund I, LLP
Court rejects plaintiff’s damages calculation related to sweeping fraud and contract breach allegations where plaintiff submitted expert report before court’s liability rulings and failed to offer revised expert report after liability trial; damages were not sufficiently tied to proven wrongs.
Plaintiff’s Overbroad Damages Calculation Prompts Court Not to Grant Award for Proven Wrongdoing
Court rejects plaintiff’s damages calculation related to sweeping fraud and contract breach allegations where plaintiff submitted expert report before court’s liability rulings and failed to offer revised expert report after liability trial; damages were not sufficiently tied to proven wrongs.
Lost profits claims fail to meet New York’s strict standard
Establishing lost profits under New York law can be difficult.
IceMOS Tech. Corp. v. Omron Corp.
In contract dispute, court says claims for lost profits and lost business value fail because, for both, plaintiff is unable to determine damages with reasonable certainty; relying solely on projections of future performance, without any proof of profit, is not enough under New York law.
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 ...
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.
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.”
Courts are alert to valuations unmoored from the facts
Perhaps experts feel pressure from the hiring attorney or the client, perhaps they are unable to access key documents or information, or perhaps they simply lack valuation and litigation experience.
Damages Claim Fails to Provide Yardsticks Capturing Defunct Startup’s Value
Appeals court upholds zero damages finding in dispute involving short-lived software startup, where plaintiff’s expert had no experience valuing software companies, misapprehended basic facts, and developed multimillion-dollar valuations for a company with no product, no revenue, and no investors.
Zaffarkhan v. Domesek
Appeals court upholds zero damages finding in dispute involving short-lived software startup, where plaintiff’s expert had no experience valuing software companies, misapprehended basic facts, and developed multimillion-dollar valuations for a company with no product, no revenue, and no investors.
2nd Circuit Affirms Nixing of Award Due to Bad Yardstick Analysis
Appeals court validates nixing of future lost profits award where expert calculated damages for a startup company based on revenues of market leader; court finds expert failed to use reasonable comparator, making his yardstick analysis legally unsound.
Washington v. Kellwood Co. (IV)
Appeals court validates nixing of future lost profits award where expert calculated damages for a startup company based on revenues of market leader; court finds expert failed to use reasonable comparator, making his yardstick analysis legally unsound.
Defective Lost Profits Analysis Triggers Take-Nothing Ruling
High court discusses level of evidence required to establish future lost profits with “reasonable certainty”; plaintiff did not show it lost any contracts owing to defendants’ wrongdoing and failed to show profitability specific to claimed lost contracts.
Majority Says EBITDA Valuations Buttress Damages Award
In business tort case involving unprofitable entity trying to market a trade secret, court upholds damages award; experts’ EBITDA valuations were based on commonly used method and numerous data sources, and experts linked data to conclusions, court says.
Pike v. Tex. EMC Mgmt., LLC
In business tort case involving unprofitable entity trying to market a trade secret, court upholds damages award; experts’ EBITDA valuations were based on commonly used method and numerous data sources, and experts linked data to conclusions, court says.
Defective Lost Profits Analysis Triggers Take-Nothing Ruling
High court discusses level of evidence required to establish future lost profits with “reasonable certainty”; plaintiff did not show it lost any contracts owing to defendants’ wrongdoing and failed to show profitability specific to claimed lost contracts.
Horizon Health Corp. v. Acadia Healthcare Co.
High court discusses level of evidence required to establish future lost profits with “reasonable certainty”; plaintiff did not show it lost any contracts owing to defendants’ wrongdoing and failed to show profitability specific to claimed lost contracts.
Court Distinguishes Between Proving Fact of Damage and Amount
Court upholds lost profits award, noting at trial plaintiff established “the fact of damages” with the requisite certainty; defendant deprived plaintiff of learning about job applicants, some of whom plaintiff would have hired to perform additional work.
Breach of Noncompete Means Damages for ‘Loss Sustained’ and Lost Profits
In breach of noncompete case, appeals court finds measure of damages is not limited to net loss; statute allows damages “for the loss sustained” in addition to lost profits, and trial court properly credited and adjusted expert’s typical damages models.