Expand the following panels for additional search options.

Bio Rad Labs. v. 10X Genomics, Inc. (I)

Court finds plaintiff expert’s lost profits calculation regarding two-supplier market is inadmissible and rejects reasonable royalty to the extent expert failed to explain how apportionment in benchmark licenses relates to expert’s hypothetical license.

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.

Lack of Facts and Data Render Expert’s Fair Value Balance Sheet Not Helpful

Bankruptcy Court excludes as unreliable and irrelevant expert’s solvency opinion and balance sheet; court says expert lacked the facts and data necessary to enact his chosen method and “failed in numerous ways” to reliably apply the facts and data in accordance with the selected method.

Weinman v. Crowley (In re Blair)

Bankruptcy Court excludes as unreliable and irrelevant expert’s solvency opinion and balance sheet; court says expert lacked the facts and data necessary to enact his chosen method and “failed in numerous ways” to reliably apply the facts and data in accordance with the selected method.

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.

Expert Qualified to Offer Unit Valuation of Telecom Property

In tax assessment case, court finds valuation expert qualified under Rule 702 despite lacking an appraiser’s license; court says rule specifically contemplates expert opinion on property valuation by nonappraisers if witness is qualified by “knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education.”

Level 3 Communications, LLC v. Dep’t of Revenue

In tax assessment case, court finds valuation expert qualified under Rule 702 despite lacking an appraiser’s license; court says rule specifically contemplates expert opinion on property valuation by nonappraisers if witness is qualified by “knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education.”

Radiologix, Inc. v. Radiology & Nuclear Medicine, LLC

Court admits expert calculation that determines one set of damages for two related plaintiff entities and that relies on data from nonparty parent entity; court finds calculation need not precisely track corporate structure to meet Daubert requirements.

Under Daubert, Damages Calculation Need Not Replicate Corporate Structure

Court admits expert calculation that determines one set of damages for two related plaintiff entities and that relies on data from nonparty parent entity; court finds calculation need not precisely track corporate structure to meet Daubert requirements.

Blind Reliance on Client Data and Wide-Ranging Values Gut New Venture Valuation

In a securities fraud action, appeals court upholds class certification; trial court did not err when it found direct evidence of price impact by way of event study was not necessary to show market efficiency where there was strong indirect evidence.

Lightbox Ventures, LLC v. 3 RD Home Ltd.

Court excludes lost profits calculation and valuations of new venture; experts’ unquestioning adoption of plaintiff’s data and assumptions, the large range of valuations proffered, and disclaimers accompanying valuations undermine opinions’ meaningfulness.

Defendant’s Move to Exclude Damages Expert at Class Certification Stage Fails

Court performs Daubert inquiry at class certification stage, finding plaintiffs’ expert testimony is admissible; expert has shown it is possible to calculate damages by applying common, reliable formula to entire class, court says, certifying class.

Expert’s Exclusion Dooms ‘Frozen Market’ Theory and Loss of Value Claims

Court excludes expert damages calculation where expert relied solely on “temporal relationship” to show causation between loss of value in plaintiff’s business and defendants’ actions and did not account for alternative explanation for plaintiff’s loss.

Defendant’s Move to Exclude Damages Expert at Class Certification Stage Fails

Court performs Daubert inquiry at class certification stage, finding plaintiffs’ expert testimony is admissible; expert has shown it is possible to calculate damages by applying common, reliable formula to entire class, court says, certifying class.

In re Stericycle, Inc.

Court performs Daubert inquiry at class certification stage, finding plaintiffs’ expert testimony is admissible; expert has shown it is possible to calculate damages by applying common, reliable formula to entire class, court says, certifying class.

Expert’s Exclusion Dooms ‘Frozen Market’ Theory and Loss of Value Claims

Court excludes expert damages calculation where expert relied solely on “temporal relationship” to show causation between loss of value in plaintiff’s business and defendants’ actions and did not account for alternative explanation for plaintiff’s loss.

TiVo Research & Analytics, Inc. v. TNS Media Research

Court excludes expert damages calculation where expert relied solely on “temporal relationship” to show causation between loss of value in plaintiff’s business and defendants’ actions and did not account for alternative explanation for plaintiff’s loss.

Court Nixes Royalty Calculation Relying on Unalike Prior Licenses

Court says prior licensing agreements undergirding expert’s hypothetical reasonable royalty have no bearing on what the parties would have negotiated for the trademark in dispute; court finds calculation too speculative to assist jury and excludes it.

Expert Prevails by Documenting Adherence to Valuation Standards

In fraud case, court rejects Daubert challenge, finding expert sufficiently identified assumptions and estimates she relied on and properly re-created subject company’s financial situation based on AICPA standards and authoritative valuation treatises.

Is Expert Opinion Based Solely on Experience Admissible?

Court rules expert testimony based solely on experience may be admissible under Federal Rule of Evidence 702, notwithstanding Daubert requirements.

Daubert Flexible as to Solvency Determination for Multiple Debtor Entities

Court finds Daubert centers on reliability, not persuasiveness, and can accommodate experts’ different approaches to determining solvency in case with multiple debtor entities; court rejects exclusion of expert opinion relying on GAAP-based financials.

Flawed Lost Profits Analysis Leaves Plaintiff Bereft of Damages Evidence

Court excludes damages opinion where expert relied on historical data from one construction project to calculate lost profits for subject project without establishing comparability as to type of contract and scope of work and by using “ad hoc” method.

51 - 75 of 148 results