Court Excludes Pro Forma-Based Economic Damages Analysis
Court excludes plaintiffs’ DCF-based damages calculation, finding it suffers from “garbage-in, garbage-out” problem; plaintiffs’ experts based cash flow analysis on defendant’s preliminary projections rather than subsequently available actual sales data.
Covol Fuels No. 4 v. Pinnacle Mining Co.
Court rejects defendant’s relevance attack on plaintiff expert’s opinion, noting under Daubert testimony need not “fit” a particular cause of action but is relevant where it assesses damages based on harm to plaintiff caused by defendant’s misconduct.
Uncertainty Over Key Inputs Compromises DCF, Chancery Says
Chancery favors merger price, without synergy adjustment, over DCF-generated value, noting uncertainties over key inputs such as projections, equity risk premium, terminal growth rate as well as the “wildly divergent” DCF results of the parties’ experts.
Damages Opinion Reveals ‘Serious Misconception’ of Role of Expert
Court excludes most of rebuttal opinion under Daubert, saying it is not “the product of reliable principles and methods” owing to expert’s “serious misconception of his role and misreading of the authorities he cites,” particularly with regard to causatio ...
Bruno v. Bozzuto’s, Inc.
Court excludes plaintiffs’ DCF-based damages calculation, finding it suffers from “garbage-in, garbage-out” problem; plaintiffs’ experts based cash flow analysis on defendant’s preliminary projections rather than subsequently available actual sales data.
Sternat v. Sternat
Appeals court says trial court’s decision to admit opinion of seasoned CPA expert who was not a credentialed business valuator was not error because valuation was a “non-issue” where evidence showed the indebted company was no longer a going concern.
Merion Capital LP & Merion Capital II LP v. BMC Software
Chancery favors merger price, without synergy adjustment, over DCF-generated value, noting uncertainties over key inputs such as projections, equity risk premium, terminal growth rate as well as the “wildly divergent” DCF results of the parties’ experts.
Rowe v. DPI Specialty Foods
Court excludes most of rebuttal opinion under Daubert, saying it is not “the product of reliable principles and methods” owing to expert’s “serious misconception of his role and misreading of the authorities he cites,” particularly with regard to causatio ...
Failure to Test Causation Narrative Clouds Analysis of Lost Profits
Court strikes parts of lost profits opinion, finding expert adopted plaintiff’s causation theory, “pinning the company’s overall financial performance” on defendants’ allegedly defective crane without offering supporting data or methodology to test theory ...
Admissibility Does Not Depend on Personal Knowledge of Facts
Appeals court says expert’s lack of personal knowledge of information undergirding lost profits calculation does not disqualify his opinion, as long as he can show experts in his field would rely on this information and it is otherwise reasonably reliable ...
Court Endorses Before and After Method for Lost Profits
In Daubert case, court accepts before and after method for lost profits and diminution of value calculation but excludes parts of expert testimony because they merely restated company assumptions and conclusions without undergoing testing from the expert.
Fraud Litigation Highlights Dispute Over ‘Market Efficiency’
Court rebuffs Daubert challenge to investor expert’s efficient market opinion, saying securities law only requires showing that false statements affected stock price and caused loss to investors, not that market perfectly reflected all public information.
StoneEagle Servs., Inc. v. Pay-Plus Solutions, Inc.
Court says market approach is “sound and reliable methodology” for calculating reasonable royalty and denies defendants’ Daubert motion to preclude plaintiff’s expert from testifying why he declined to use Georgia-Pacific factors in this case.
In re Groupon Secs. Litig.
Court rebuffs Daubert challenge to investor expert’s efficient market opinion, saying securities law only requires showing that false statements affected stock price and caused loss to investors, not that market perfectly reflected all public information.
Am. Aerial Servs. v. Terex United States
Court strikes parts of lost profits opinion, finding expert adopted plaintiff’s causation theory, “pinning the company’s overall financial performance” on defendants’ allegedly defective crane without offering supporting data or methodology to test theory ...
Expert’s Failure to Adhere to Objective Standard Spoils Analysis
Court excludes lost profits analysis under Daubert where expert calculates value of plaintiff’s book of business without documenting comparables, verifying plaintiff’s claims as to number of lost clients, and employing objective work-life expectancy data.
What Role for Revenue Ruling 59-60 Factors in Valuing Closely Held Business?
Expert’s use of Revenue Ruling 59-60 for valuation of closely held business and for damages calculation does not render opinion inadmissible under Daubert, court says, noting that scope of revenue ruling goes beyond valuation of estate and gift taxes.
Advanced Drainage Sys. v. Quality Culvert, Inc.
In Daubert case, court accepts before and after method for lost profits and diminution of value calculation but excludes parts of expert testimony because they merely restated company assumptions and conclusions without undergoing testing from the expert.
Am. Eagle Waste Indust., LLC v. St. Louis County
Appeals court says expert’s lack of personal knowledge of information undergirding lost profits calculation does not disqualify his opinion, as long as he can show experts in his field would rely on this information and it is otherwise reasonably reliable ...
J&M Distrib., Inc. v. Hearth & Home Techs., Inc.
Expert’s use of Revenue Ruling 59-60 for valuation of closely held business and for damages calculation does not render opinion inadmissible under Daubert, court says, noting that scope of revenue ruling goes beyond valuation of estate and gift taxes.
Russell v. Allianze Life Ins. Co. of N.A.
Court excludes lost profits analysis under Daubert where expert calculates value of plaintiff’s book of business without documenting comparables, verifying plaintiff’s claims as to number of lost clients, and employing objective work-life expectancy data.
Expert’s Tax Appraisal Weathers Frontal Daubert Attack
Appeals court says tax tribunal did not abdicate its gatekeeper role under Rule 702 when admitting taxpayer expert’s appraisal, where the expert was qualified and used a reliable methodology; a searching inquiry into the underlying data was not necessary.
Court Trusts Process to Test Expert’s Calculation of Value
Calculation reports periodically become a point of contention in litigation in trial and appeals courts. Courts have responded in different ways to questions about their usefulness and reliability. A recent case explores the issue of whether expert testimony based on a calculation of value is admissible under Daubert. Prior to marriage, the husband founded a company that marketed and sold Steel Seal, a car repair product that sealed blown head gaskets. The company ...
Failure to Specify Offset Value Does Not Preclude Expert’s Admissibility
In contract dispute, court finds defendant expert’s testimony regarding offset value of new equipment plaintiff installed in reliance on contract is relevant under Daubert even though expert fails to state precise monetary benefit to plaintiff.
Use of Reliable Method Does Not Assure Admissibility
Appeals court finds trial court had discretion under Daubert to exclude expert testimony on future lost profits where expert used the “first mover advantage” as part of his DCF analysis to quantify damages and ended up with an unreliable method.