Willis v. Big Lots, Inc.
In a securities case, court applies Daubert analysis to plaintiff expert’s market efficiency opinion and event study; expert is qualified even without academic background, and his damages opinion is sufficiently specific to facts of the case and reliable.
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.
2nd Circuit Chafes at Wholesale Exclusion of Loss Causation Testimony
Second Circuit says district court “went astray” when, under Daubert, it excluded entire loss causation and damages testimony of plaintiffs’ expert instead of just eliminating unreliable part; appeals court ruling revives securities fraud class action.
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.
Broyles v. Cantor Fitzgerald & Co.
Court rules expert testimony based solely on experience may be admissible under Federal Rule of Evidence 702, notwithstanding Daubert requirements.
Wholesale exclusion of expert testimony contravenes Daubert, 2nd Circuit says
One error in an extensive economic analysis does not automatically call into question the entire expert opinion, the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals recently said in the context of a securities fraud lawsuit involving the drug giant Pfizer. With this pronouncement the appeals court resuscitated a class action that had died after the district court excluded the plaintiffs' loss causation and damages expert under Daubert based on errors in the expert's event study. Deprived of the testimony, the plaintiffs were unable to prove two critical elements of their claim.
Showers v. Pfizer, Inc. (In re Pfizer Inc. Sec. Litig.)
Second Circuit says district court “went astray” when, under Daubert, it excluded entire loss causation and damages testimony of plaintiffs’ expert instead of just eliminating unreliable part; appeals court ruling revives securities fraud class action.
Call for change in New York’s DLOM stance gains steam
A "new note" in the hotly debated NY DLOM issue was sounded in an article in the January issue of Business Valuation Update. In the article, “NY’s Unfair Application of Shareholder-Level Marketability Discounts,” Gil Matthews and Michelle Patterson (both with Sutter Securities) write that New York “stands alone in that it favors (and some lower courts believe requires) the imposition of a marketability discount on dissenting shareholders in fair value determinations. There is broad consensus that DLOMs should seldom, if ever, be permitted in appraisal or oppression cases.”
7th Circuit Proposes Solution for Loss Causation Conundrum
7th Circuit agrees with defendants that plaintiff expert’s leakage loss-causation model failed to account for firm-specific, nonfraud factors that could have affected stock price movement and orders new trial applying court’s burden-shifting approach.
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.
Glickenhaus & Co. v. Household International, Inc.
7th Circuit agrees with defendants that plaintiff expert’s leakage loss-causation model failed to account for firm-specific, nonfraud factors that could have affected stock price movement and orders new trial applying court’s burden-shifting approach.
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.
Chancery Trusts DCF to Home In on Common Stock Value
Court of Chancery finds the defendant directors proved “entire fairness” despite a management incentive plan and large liquidation preference that rendered the sales process unfair to common stockholders and left them with no proceeds; defendant expert’s ...
Court, Not Expert, Misses Mark on Loss Causation
Appellate court finds district court erred in excluding expert testimony on loss causation and damages in non-typical § 10(b) securities fraud case under Rule 702, because proof as to both elements under this scenario is less “complex”; the expert only ha ...
In re Trados Inc.
Court of Chancery finds the defendant directors proved “entire fairness” despite a management incentive plan and large liquidation preference that rendered the sales process unfair to common stockholders and left them with no proceeds; defendant expert’s ...
Pure Earth, Inc. v. Call
Appellate court finds district court erred in excluding expert testimony on loss causation and damages in non-typical § 10(b) securities fraud case under Rule 702, because proof as to both elements under this scenario is less “complex”; the expert only ha ...
Expert’s Event Study ‘Flouts’ Commonly Accepted Methodology
District court strike’s expert event study, purporting to support a “fraud on the market theory,” for “flouting” accepted methodology, including “cherry-picking” the event dates and failing to account for confounding factors.