New case to address goodwill impairment dispute
Goodwill impairment does not appear often in litigation, but a court case in Tennessee will go forward after a judge ruled not to dismiss the plaintiff’s claims.
Strougo v. Tivity Health, Inc.
In this case regarding alleged fraud in the purchase or sale of securities, the defendants pled a motion to dismiss the plaintiffs’ claims. The parties categorized the defendants’ alleged misstatements into two groups: (1) the Nutrisystem claim, where the defendants allegedly misled investors as to the success of the Nutrisystem acquisition; and (2) the goodwill claim, where the defendants allegedly impaired goodwill by carrying goodwill at a value that exceeded its implied fair value. The court denied the motion to dismiss.
Court Denies a Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ Claims That Defendants “Hid” Losses and Impaired Goodwill
In this case regarding alleged fraud in the purchase or sale of securities, the defendants pled a motion to dismiss the plaintiffs’ claims. The parties categorized the defendants’ alleged misstatements into two groups: (1) the Nutrisystem claim, where the defendants allegedly misled investors as to the success of the Nutrisystem acquisition; and (2) the goodwill claim, where the defendants allegedly impaired goodwill by carrying goodwill at a value that exceeded its implied fair value. The court denied the motion to dismiss.
Failure to Do Independent Price Impact Analysis Begets Class Certification
Court certifies securities fraud class action where plaintiff expert’s analysis shows market efficiency and where defense expert fails to perform independent event study to show lack of price impact and disprove effect of alleged misrepresentations.
Li v. Aeterna Zentaris, Inc.
Court certifies securities fraud class action where plaintiff expert’s analysis shows market efficiency and where defense expert fails to perform independent event study to show lack of price impact and disprove effect of alleged misrepresentations.
BVLaw Case Update
Every month, BVLaw analyzes and digests federal and state court decisions (including opinions from the United States Tax Court) that focus on valuation and damages issues and feature expert testimony. A BVLaw subscription is an efficient way for financial experts to keep up with developments in their areas of expertise and with the various courts’ takes on valuation methodology, Daubert and the art of presentation, and policy concerns.
Defense Event Study Rebuts Plaintiff’s Price Impact Claim
Court denies class certification in securities fraud case, finding defense financial expert is able to rebut presumption of reliance by way of event study that shows defendant’s alleged misrepresentation had no significant impact on company’s stock price.
In re Finisar Corp. Secs. Litig.
Court denies class certification in securities fraud case, finding defense financial expert is able to rebut presumption of reliance by way of event study that shows defendant’s alleged misrepresentation had no significant impact on company’s stock price.
Baker v. Seaworld Entm’t, Inc.
Court grants class certification in securities fraud case; defense expert’s event study to show absence-of-price-impact fails to rebut presumption of reliance; plaintiff meets predominance requirement and its expert offers valid classwide damages model.
Court Balks at Event Study’s Singular Focus on Misrepresentation
Court grants class certification in securities fraud case; defense expert’s event study to show absence-of-price-impact fails to rebut presumption of reliance; plaintiff meets predominance requirement and its expert offers valid classwide damages model.
Direct Evidence of Price Impact Not Always Necessary, 2nd Circuit Says
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.
Waggoner v. Barclays PLC
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.
Expert’s Damages Opinion Specific Enough for Class Certification Stage
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.
Expert’s Damages Opinion Specific Enough for Class Certification Stage
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 ...