Expand the following panels for additional search options.

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 ...

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.”

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.”

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.

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 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.

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.”

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.”

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.

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.

Pointers for expert witnesses from the AICPA FVS conference

BVWire sat through several excellent sessions involving valuations for litigation purposes at the 2019 AICPA Forensic and Valuation Services Conference in Las Vegas.

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.

Cline v. Sunoco

In class-certification context, court says plaintiff’s damages expert meets Rule 702/Daubert requirements as they apply in early stage of litigation; expert is qualified, and, damages model, even if not fully developed, provides a sufficiently reliable way to calculate damages on classwide basis.

Expert Testimony Offered at Class-Certification Stage Survives Daubert Challenge

In class-certification context, court says plaintiff’s damages expert meets Rule 702/Daubert requirements as they apply in early stage of litigation; expert is qualified, and, damages model, even if not fully developed, provides a sufficiently reliable way to calculate damages on classwide basis.

The main reason experts get KO’d by Daubert

Lack of reliability continues to be the main reason for financial expert witness exclusions under Daubert, according to the PwC survey, “Daubert Challenges to Financial Experts.”

In court, you must appeal to the jury

Do you think you can win over a jury with just your credentials and technical knowledge?

Appraisers fare best at surviving a Daubert challenge

In 2018, appraisers had the lowest exclusion rate (38%) among all types of financial experts facing a Daubert challenge, reveals the PwC survey, “Daubert Challenges to Financial Experts.”

Court Validates Expert’s Reliance on Pratt’s Stats/DealStats for Sales Transaction Analysis

Appeals court upholds valuation of plaintiff’s interest in dissolved company and jury award; plaintiff expert’s analysis of sales transactions of comparable companies was admissible; Pratt’s Stats/DealStats database provided a reliable basis for expert to identify relevant sales, court says.

Alkayali v. Boukhari

Appeals court upholds valuation of plaintiff’s interest in dissolved company and jury award; plaintiff expert’s analysis of sales transactions of comparable companies was admissible; Pratt’s Stats/DealStats database provided a reliable basis for expert to identify relevant sales, court says.

1 - 25 of 155 results