Solvency opinion based on management projections faces Daubert challenge
In a bankruptcy-cum-Daubert case that turned on solvency, a court recently rejected both parties’ claims that the opposing financial expert testimony was inadmissible.
Experts Need Not Be ‘Blue-Ribbon Practitioners’ to Meet Rule 702 Qualification Requirement
In bankruptcy dispute, court rejects parties’ Daubert challenge to opposing expert testimony; defense expert did not blindly rely on management projections for capital adequacy and balance sheet tests, and plaintiff’s expert did not use hindsight to find debtor was insolvent on fund transfer dates.
Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors v. Calpers Corp. Partners, LLC
In bankruptcy dispute, court rejects parties’ Daubert challenge to opposing expert testimony; defense expert did not blindly rely on management projections for capital adequacy and balance sheet tests, and plaintiff’s expert did not use hindsight to find debtor was insolvent on fund transfer dates.
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.”
Eurochem North America Corp. v. Ganske
Court finds proposed expert testimony inadmissible under Rule 702 and Daubert where expert did not himself prepare the value determination, conceded any estimate of value by his firm was prepared for marketing purposes, and where damages model that expert testimony supported was fatally flawed.
Lack of Valuation Credentials Does Not Disqualify Expert, but Failure to Perform Valuation Does, Court Finds
Court finds proposed expert testimony inadmissible under Rule 702 and Daubert where expert did not himself prepare the value determination, conceded any estimate of value by his firm was prepared for marketing purposes, and where damages model that expert testimony supported was fatally flawed.
Court Decides Daubert Exclusion of Expert Testimony for Failure to Apportion Is Premature
In trade secrets dispute, court denies defendant’s Daubert motion, finding exclusion of opposing damages expert testimony for failure to apportion is premature; whether or not entire market value rule applies is determination for jury “after hearing all the documentary and testimonial evidence.”
Pawelko v. Hasbro, Inc.
In trade secrets dispute, court denies defendant’s Daubert motion, finding exclusion of opposing damages expert testimony for failure to apportion is premature; whether or not entire market value rule applies is determination for jury “after hearing all the documentary and testimonial evidence.”
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.
Recent Daubert rulings show courts’ different takes on the role of gatekeeper
A series of recent Daubert cases illustrate how different courts may interpret the role of “gatekeeper,” which they perform under Rule 702 and Daubert.
Court Admits Unjust Enrichment Damages Based on Profit Projections
In Daubert case centering on misappropriation of trade secrets, court says plaintiff expert’s valuation of trade secrets based on defense projections of sales and profits derived from offending product is admissible; defendant failed to show this approach to determine asset’s value is improper.
Grove US LLC v. Sany America Inc.
In Daubert case centering on misappropriation of trade secrets, court says plaintiff expert’s valuation of trade secrets based on defense projections of sales and profits derived from offending product is admissible; defendant failed to show this approach to determine asset’s value is improper.
Court Says Daubert’s ‘Gatekeeper’ Role Favors Inclusion, Not Exclusion
In contract and tort case, court declines to exclude plaintiff’s damages expert, noting court’s gatekeeping function “is not a role that emphasizes exclusion of expert testimony”; expert’s background in economics and business valuation experience qualified him to value subject company.
Ferraro v. Convercent, Inc.
In contract and tort case, court declines to exclude plaintiff’s damages expert, noting court’s gatekeeping function “is not a role that emphasizes exclusion of expert testimony”; expert’s background in economics and business valuation experience qualified him to value subject company.
New Jersey closer to Daubert but still not a Daubert jurisdiction
A decision from the Supreme Court recently led New Jersey to adopt key Daubert factors for determining the admissibility of expert testimony, but the high court’s ruling also expresses a reluctance to fully embrace the Daubert standard.
Butler/Pinkerton Calculator Meets First Daubert Challenge in Federal Court
Federal Court confirms that the Butler-Pinkerton Calculator passes the Daubert standard.
Alamar Ranch, LLC v. County of Boise
Federal Court confirms that the Butler-Pinkerton Calculator passes the Daubert standard.