Reviews of Articles from Dunn on Damages–The Economic Damages Report for Litigators and Experts, Winter 2011
Lost profits and economic damages expert witnesses will be interested to read two reviews recently posted at Courtroom Insight. Both reviews about articles published in the Winter 2011 edition of Dunn on Damages–The Economic Damages Report for Litigators and Experts suggest the articles provide valuable information for expert witnesses.
The first article Do Business Valuations and Lost Profits Methodologies Produce the Same Result? by Marcie D. Bour is described as follows by the anonymous expert witness who recommends it:
The article builds on prior writings in the Dunn on Damages journal that address the differences between measuring damages by the lost profits approach compared to the business valuation methodology. Ms. Bour identifies selected differences in the approaches and demonstrates through examples how the two approaches will yield damages that are not the same. The writing is valuable for its practical illustrations, and contributes to the growing recognition that the business valuation and lost profits approaches are not alternative pathways to reaching the same damages figure, even under simplified assumptions.
The second review of an article in the Dunn on Damages newsletter discusses Causation Scenarios for the Damages Expert by Greg J. Regan and Christopher J. Lovrien. Also reviewed by an expert witness, the reviewer claims:
All damages experts will benefit from reading and understanding this article, and applying its suggestions to develop and present their opinions.
He/she goes on to say:
Experts often assume that causation (in the business not legal sense) will be proven by others at trial. As such, for example, I have seen experts opine on the lost business value of an enterprise and base their findings on ex ante information (consistent with measuring the lost BV as of the date of wrongdoing). The ex post information, however, strongly reveals that many other factors than defendant’s actions caused or contributed materially to plaintiff’s losses. If so, the expert assuming but not proving causation may be excluded or be destroyed during cross examination for ignoring facts contradicting his or her conclusions. This article provides extremely valuable guidance to avoid such problems and is an excellent refresher for all damages experts.
These and many other reviews of professional resources for expert witnesses (as well as reviews of the experts themselves) are available at Courtroom Insight. To read the complete reviews and for links to the Dunn on Damages publication, click below: