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.”
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.
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.
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.
In Gatekeeper Role, Court Trains Attention on Expert Methodology, Not Conclusions
In ESOP case pivoting on valuation, court denies parties’ Daubert challenges; court notes “gatekeeping” means focusing “on principles and methodology, not the conclusions that [the experts] generate”; parties’ objections are mostly quarrels with opposing expert’s conclusions, court finds.
Acosta v. Wilmington Trust, N.A. (I) (Graphite)
In ESOP case pivoting on valuation, court denies parties’ Daubert challenges; court notes “gatekeeping” means focusing “on principles and methodology, not the conclusions that [the experts] generate”; parties’ objections are mostly quarrels with opposing expert’s conclusions, court finds.
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.
Failure to explain inputs gets expert excluded under Daubert
If more proof is necessary to show that courts across all legal fields dive deep into the details of valuation testimony, a recent damages case that arose in the context of a condemnation proceeding should do the trick.
More on Florida’s decision re: Daubert
As we reported last week, the Florida Supreme Court recently invalidated a 2013 legislative amendment that required courts to use the Daubert standard to assess the admissibility of expert testimony.
Florida Supreme Court negates legislature’s adoption of Daubert
In 2013, the Florida legislature amended the Florida code, section 90.702, dealing with expert testimony, to incorporate the Daubert standard in the state’s rules of evidence.
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.
New Jersey adopts key Daubert factors for expert admissibility determination
In an important ruling, the New Jersey Supreme Court recently took a big step toward Daubert but failed to embrace it completely.
Meridian Mfg. v. C&B Mfg.
Court admits expert opinion that reasonable royalty cannot exceed cost of developing noninfringing alternative because opinion is based on facts of the case; court excludes opposing expert’s royalty because he failed to assess comparability of selected licenses to patented technology.
Underdeveloped Comparability Analysis Means Exclusion of Reasonable Royalty Opinion
Court admits expert opinion that reasonable royalty cannot exceed cost of developing noninfringing alternative because opinion is based on facts of the case; court excludes opposing expert’s royalty because he failed to assess comparability of selected licenses to patented technology.
Expert’s Failure to Explain Basis for Compensation Analysis Renders Testimony Inadmissible
In condemnation case requiring fair market value analysis to determine compensation due to landowners, court excludes defense expert testimony, citing failure to follow mandated methodology and standard of value; court calls aspects of loss calculation based on income approach “disturbing.”
Rover Pipeline LLC v. 10.55 Acres
In condemnation case requiring fair market value analysis to determine compensation due to landowners, court excludes defense expert testimony, citing failure to follow mandated methodology and standard of value; court calls aspects of loss calculation based on income approach “disturbing.”
Calculation engagement value holds up in Alabama divorce litigation
Many valuators are adamantly opposed to doing calculation engagements, as we recently reported.
Appeals Court Validates Trial Court’s Reliance on Calculation of Value
Appeals court rejects claim that expert’s value determination pursuant to a calculation engagement rather than a valuation engagement was unreliable; trial court properly considered limitations inherent in a calculation engagement when crediting expert’s value estimate, appeals court says.
Rohling v. Rohling
Appeals court rejects claim that expert’s value determination pursuant to a calculation engagement rather than a valuation engagement was unreliable; trial court properly considered limitations inherent in a calculation engagement when crediting expert’s value estimate, appeals court says.
San Bernardino Cty. Trans. Auth. v. Byun
In eminent domain case, appeals court says trial court’s exclusion of defendants’ valuation expert was justified where expert simply adopted another expert’s valuation without testing the raw financial data and being able to substantiate the other expert’s assumptions and conclusions.
‘Wholesale’ Adoption of Another’s Valuation Makes Expert Testimony Worthless
In eminent domain case, appeals court says trial court’s exclusion of defendants’ valuation expert was justified where expert simply adopted another expert’s valuation without testing the raw financial data and being able to substantiate the other expert’s assumptions and conclusions.