LCT Capital, LLC v. NGL Energy Partners LP
In this ongoing case regarding investment banking services and fees, the court ruled on various motions of the parties to exclude certain testimony from two expert witnesses, one from each side, and to exclude certain evidence to be presented by those witnesses. The court denied the plaintiff’s motions but granted the defendant’s motions.
Appraisers have highest exclusion rate under Daubert, per PwC study
Under Daubert, appraisers were excluded more often in 2021 than any other type of financial expert witness, according to the PwC survey, “Daubert Challenges to Financial Experts (2000-2021).”
Court uses old transaction to value a dental practice
In a North Carolina divorce case, the wife’s stake in a dental practice was valued based on what she paid for it two years before she and her husband separated in 2015 (the valuation date).
Logue v. Logue
In this marital dissolution case in North Carolina, the appellate court affirmed the trial court’s determination of value of the wife’s dental practice. The trial court determined the value based on the value of the entire practice determined several years before the separation date. That value was determined by appraisals by professional appraisers to determine the buyout of the husband’s father’s 50% interest in the practice. No evidence of value as of the separation date was provided by the parties who decided not to hire appraisers to assess the value at the separation date.
North Carolina Appellate Court Values a Dental Practice Based on a Two-Year-Old Purchase of an Interest in the Practice
In this marital dissolution case in North Carolina, the appellate court affirmed the trial court’s determination of value of the wife’s dental practice. The trial court determined the value based on the value of the entire practice determined several years before the separation date. That value was determined by appraisals by professional appraisers to determine the buyout of the husband’s father’s 50% interest in the practice. No evidence of value as of the separation date was provided by the parties who decided not to hire appraisers to assess the value at the separation date.
Expert’s testimony excluded regarding licensing tattoos to video games
In a copyright infringement case in federal court in Ohio, a tattoo artist sued a video game company for depicting NBA players adorned with his copyrighted tattoos.
Parties' Motions to Exclude Each Other’s Experts Are Granted in Part and Denied in Part
In this trade secrets and breach of contract case, portions of each expert’s testimony were found to be offering a factual narrative that is within the purview of a lay jury to ascertain. Those portions of testimony were excluded for both experts, but the parties’ arguments as to the qualifications of the experts and supposed reliance of an expert on the work of another were denied.
Redcell Corp. v. A.J. Trucco, Inc.
In this trade secrets and breach of contract case, portions of each expert’s testimony were found to be offering a factual narrative that is within the purview of a lay jury to ascertain. Those portions of testimony were excluded for both experts, but the parties’ arguments as to the qualifications of the experts and supposed reliance of an expert on the work of another were denied.
Hayden v. 2k Games, Inc.
The defendants in this case regarding licensing of tattoo designs for a video game moved to exclude the testimony of the plaintiff’s expert regarding a “Market Opinion.” The motion was granted in part and denied in part by the court.
U.S. District Court Excludes Testimony Speculating What Is in People’s Minds and Certain Legal Determinations
The defendants in this case regarding licensing of tattoo designs for a video game moved to exclude the testimony of the plaintiff’s expert regarding a “Market Opinion.” The motion was granted in part and denied in part by the court.
Appraisers Have the Highest Exclusion Rate Under Daubert, Per PwC Study
A look at the latest study from PwC that analyzes challenges to financial expert witnesses (appraisers, accountants, economists, and others) under the Daubert standards from 2000 to 2020. Also, some classic advice on how to survive a Daubert challenge.
IP damages experts dodge exclusion in trademark case
In a trademark infringement case in Florida, the plaintiff’s expert (an economist) was to testify as to corrective advertising damages, but the defendant made a motion that she be excluded.
Appeals court vacates going-concern valuation for firm being wound down
In an Arizona divorce case, the couple owned a business that was being phased out.
In Re Riddle
The appeal in this case dealt with, among other issues, the trial court’s decision to adopt the husband’s expert’s value that was based on a capitalization of earnings based on expected future income. The appellate court noted that the evidence from the trial showed that the business received no revenue after the wife sold her interest to a third party, and there was no evidence that similar earnings would occur in the future. The trial court’s determination of value was vacated and remanded.
Trial Court’s Decision of Value of Business Based on a Going Concern Is Reversed and Remanded
The appeal in this case dealt with, among other issues, the trial court’s decision to adopt the husband’s expert’s value that was based on a capitalization of earnings based on expected future income. The appellate court noted that the evidence from the trial showed that the business received no revenue after the wife sold her interest to a third party, and there was no evidence that similar earnings would occur in the future. The trial court’s determination of value was vacated and remanded.
Therapeutics MD, Inc. v. Evofem Biosciences, Inc.
In this trademark infringement case before a U.S. magistrate judge, the magistrate recommended to the District Court whether certain experts should be allowed to testify. The recommendations were for granting or denying motions of both parties to exclude testimony of the other party’s experts. The magistrate reviewed not only the qualifications of each of the experts, but also the subject of their testimony and opinions and whether they are appropriate and helpful to the court in resolving the issues. In the end, the magistrate recommended to deny the plaintiff’s motion to exclude the defendant’s experts and the defendant’s motion to exclude the plaintiff’s experts be granted in part and denied in part.
Magistrate Judge Recommends That the Plaintiff’s Motion to Exclude the Defendant’s Experts Be Denied and That the Defendant’s Motion to Exclude Plaintiff’s Experts Be Granted in Part and Denied in Part
In this trademark infringement case before a U.S. magistrate judge, the magistrate recommended to the District Court whether certain experts should be allowed to testify. The recommendations were for granting or denying motions of both parties to exclude testimony of the other party’s experts. The magistrate reviewed not only the qualifications of each of the experts, but also the subject of their testimony and opinions and whether they are appropriate and helpful to the court in resolving the issues. In the end, the magistrate recommended to deny the plaintiff’s motion to exclude the defendant’s experts and the defendant’s motion to exclude the plaintiff’s experts be granted in part and denied in part.
Damages expert dodges exclusion bullet
In a patent infringement case in Tennessee, the defendants filed a motion to exclude the testimony of the damages expert for the plaintiffs.
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.