The plaintiffs’ business was allegedly damaged by the actions of the defendant. The plaintiffs engaged an expert in economic damages and lost profits. The defendants engaged their own expert to provide his opinions as to why he believed the plaintiffs’ expert’s opinions were unreliable. The court ultimately excluded this portion of the defendants’ expert’s testimony.
View Case Digest View CaseLane v. Lampkin (III)
In usurped-corporate-opportunity case, high court upholds trial court’s lost profits calculation based on actual numbers of company benefitting from wrongdoing, although best way is to project future profits or consider past profits of damaged business.
Manichaean Capital, LLC v. SourceHOV Holdings, Inc.
In appraisal proceeding, Court of Chancery adopts petitioner expert’s DCF-based model for calculating fair value, making slight adjustment to expert’s size premium; on beta calculation, court finds respondent expert’s novel approach “does not survive judicial scrutiny” and raises Daubert issues.
Bayou Place Limited Partnership v. Alleppo’s Grill, Inc.
In rent payment dispute, court rejects defendant restaurant’s force majeure claim that devastating hurricane was act of God that interfered with restaurant’s use of property and excused performance where lease did not contain force majeure provision and rent payments stopped before storm.
Rochkind v. Stevenson
In a split decision featuring a long-running tort case that hinged on medical expert testimony regarding plaintiff’s claims of lead poising, divided state high court abandons two-channel approach, including Frye general acceptance test, for Daubert standard of admissibility of expert testimony.
In re Appraisal of Jarden Corp. (I)
Court finds record shows unaffected market price is best evidence of fair value; court says company expert’s efficient market analysis and event study provide strong support for use of market price; court’s own DCF analysis generates value close to market price, thus corroborating market price.
Verition Partners Master Fund Ltd. v. Aruba Networks, Inc. (Aruba I)
In statutory appraisal proceeding, Court of Chancery says unaffected market price provides “direct evidence of the collective view of market participants” as to target’s fair value whereas deal-price-minus-synergies is a less reliable “indirect measure.”
Coster v. UIP Companies, Inc.
In breach of fiduciary duty action, court says stock sale passes enhanced fairness review; appraiser valuing real estate investment services company before sale is eminently qualified and knowledgeable about industry; capitalized cash flow method “generated a reliable indicator” of company’s value.
HBK Master Fund L.P. v. Pivotal Software, Inc.
In a long and complex opinion, the Delaware Court of Chancery determined the value per share of stock in a former stockholder’s appraisal action. The per-share value was reached by ascribing equal weight to adjusted versions of the comparable companies analysis (GPCM) the stockholder advanced and the discounted cash flow analysis the company advanced. The other methodologies were rejected. The use of the GPCM represented the first use of that method in some years.
Scalia v. Reliance Trust Co.
In an evolving ESOP case, court says DOL’s allegations that ESOP trustee and various directors engaged in breaches of fiduciary duties and caused the ESOP to enter a prohibited transaction (i.e., overpaid for company stock) require “fact-intensive inquiry” and cannot be resolved on summary judgment.
In re PetSmart, Inc.
In statutory appraisal, Chancery decides to “defer” to deal price, citing a robust sales process and well-functioning market; petitioners’ DCF analysis was not a useful valuation tool where it was based on, “at best, fanciful” management projections.
In re Stillwater Mining Co. 2017 0385 JTL
In statutory appraisal of public company, court relies on deal price; presigning sale process was “suboptimal,” but post-signing market check was “effective”; there was an argument for upward adjustment to deal price based on an increase in the company’s value between merger announcement and deal closing.
In re PLX Tech. Stockholders Litig.
Chancery says plaintiffs proved directors breached fiduciary duties and duty to disclose but failed to prove damages; court rejects plaintiff expert's DCF analysis, noting problematic projections and beta; “real-world market evidence” shows company was not worth more than deal price.
Weisfelner v. Blavatnik (In re Lyondell Chem. Co.)
Court says trustee fails to show debtor was insolvent under any applicable financial condition tests; contemporaneous industry analysis and valuations by financing banks belie claim that management projections in support of merger were unreasonable.
Perez v. First Bankers Trust Services, Inc.
Court finds ESOP trustee liable for causing plan to overpay; trustee “delegated” valuation to ESOP valuator without inquiring into valuation components, including projections, and without exploring “glaring” gaps (industry analysis) in valuation report.