Expand the following panels for additional search options.

BV News and Trends January 2021

A monthly roundup of key developments of interest to business valuation experts.

Journal of Business Valuation 2021 Edition

From the CBV Institute ...

Xodus Med. v. Prime Med. (II)

This was a patent infringement case related to technology “related to patient slippage within the context of the Trendelenburg position for surgery—when using a viscoelastic foam.” Ivan T. Hoffmann was the plaintiffs’ damages expert. The defendants sought to exclude Hoffmann’s testimony on lost profits and his opinion of the reasonable royalty. Lost profits should be excluded because “he fails to tie consumer demand for products to the patented features of those products,” and he “does not establish … that, but for the alleged infringement, Plaintiffs would have made each and every sale made by Defendants.” Hoffman’s reasonable royalty analysis should be excluded because Hofmann’s royalty rate calculation of $20.00 represents a 141.8% increase to his $8.27 per unit “starting point,” and he provided no explanation for this substantial increase. The plaintiffs argued that the defendants’ quibbles with Hoffman’s opinion was the stuff of cross-examination but not exclusion. The defendants’ motion was denied.

Court Denies Defendants’ Motion to Exclude Expert Testimony—The Subject of the Testimony Is the Subject of Cross-Examination but Not Exclusion

This was a patent infringement case related to technology “related to patient slippage within the context of the Trendelenburg position for surgery—when using a viscoelastic foam.” Ivan T. Hoffmann was the plaintiffs’ damages expert. The defendants sought to exclude Hoffmann’s testimony on lost profits and his opinion of the reasonable royalty. Lost profits should be excluded because “he fails to tie consumer demand for products to the patented features of those products,” and he “does not establish … that, but for the alleged infringement, Plaintiffs would have made each and every sale made by Defendants.” Hoffman’s reasonable royalty analysis should be excluded because Hofmann’s royalty rate calculation of $20.00 represents a 141.8% increase to his $8.27 per unit “starting point,” and he provided no explanation for this substantial increase. The plaintiffs argued that the defendants’ quibbles with Hoffman’s opinion was the stuff of cross-examination but not exclusion. The defendants’ motion was denied.

Mock trial event this Friday, November 5

At the ASA International Conference in Las Vegas, BVWire chatted with the folks from the Houston ASA Chapter, who are having a full-day mock trail event this Friday, November 5.

Can’t answer a question with a simple yes or no in court?

It is always very interesting to hear what judges have to say about giving expert testimony.

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.

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.

Maryland commits to Daubert for evaluating admissibility of expert testimony

In a critical move, Maryland’s highest court recently changed the standard for the admission of expert testimony when it abandoned the existing two-channel approach in favor of Daubert.

Rochkind v. Stevenson

In a split decision featuring a long-running tort case that hinged on medical expert testimony regarding plaintiff’s claims of lead poising, divided state high court abandons two-channel approach, including Frye general acceptance test, for Daubert standard of admissibility of expert testimony.

Split Maryland High Court Adopts Daubert for Testing Admissibility of Expert Testimony

In a split decision featuring a long-running tort case that hinged on medical expert testimony regarding plaintiff’s claims of lead poising, divided state high court abandons two-channel approach, including Frye general acceptance test, for Daubert standard of admissibility of expert testimony.

Masterclass in Normalizing Compensation

Three nationally known experts will explain how to determine reasonable compensation amounts. The principal author of the Job Aid, Mike Gregory, will explain the “IRS Job Aid on Reasonable Compensation” and share case studies with many tips and traps. One of the foremost national experts on reasonable compensation, Stephen Kirkland, will share insights and sources to help determine reasonable compensation for your clients. Paul Hamann will show how easy it is to use RCReports to ...

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.”

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.

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.

Court Rejects Parties’ Expert Valuations of Unique Sailing Vessel as Unreliable

In damages case involving unique ship for which there was no active market, court says parties’ experts provided some data points relevant to valuing ship but failed to give adequate explanations of rationales and calculations, making testimony unreliable; court performs its own analysis.

In re Manhattan By Sail, Inc.

In damages case involving unique ship for which there was no active market, court says parties’ experts provided some data points relevant to valuing ship but failed to give adequate explanations of rationales and calculations, making testimony unreliable; court performs its own analysis.

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.”

BVU News and Trends November 2019

A monthly roundup of key developments of interest to business valuation experts.

Survey of Daubert Challenges to Experts Suggests Red Flags to Avoid

In 2018, appraisers had the lowest exclusion rate among all types of financial experts facing a Daubert challenge, reveals the current edition of an annual PwC survey. The article also presents some tips on how to avoid a challenge.

1 - 25 of 166 results