Examples of Litigation Projects

Retained by the defendant in a lawsuit in which a plaintiff alleged lost profits. The firm was able to demonstrate that the plaintiff’s expert utilized a flawed methodology and inappropriate data.

The firm has been retained to show the economic impact of a hypothetical punitive damages award that might be imposed on a Fortune 500 company. This analysis showed the full economic impact of such an award on the various stakeholders who would be affected. The analysis also showed how such an award would be related to the legal purposes of punitive damages.

Measured the fraud on the market caused by the alleged falsification of information contained in a publicly held company’s financial statements. Fundamental to this assignment, which was one of the more notable stock fraud cases in recent history, was the projection of the “proper” prices of the company’s stock.

Assisted defense counsel who was served with an economic loss report by the plaintiff. Prepared a critique and a detailed line of cross examination.

Measured the value of the shares of a closely held company for estate tax purposes. Different valuation methods were used and appropriate adjustments were made to reflect the size and marketability of the share holding.

Valued a closely held business that was considered by the courts to be a joint asset in a matrimonial lawsuit.

Valued the stock of a company that was being sold. This valuation was used by the company for its eventual sale.

Valued a closely held business for the estate tax purposes.

Valued the equity of a publicly held business that was involved in litigation.

Appointed expert retained to place a value on a closely held business that was considered joint asset in a matrimonial lawsuit.

The firm was retained by the owners of a closely held manufacturing company to determine the value of the company. This valuation was used to evaluate offers for the eventual sale of the business.

Retained as a rebuttal expert to a court appointed expert who had made significant errors in his analysis and employed a flawed methodology to value a closely held business. After being made aware of these errors the expert revised his analysis.

Measured the lost wages and fringe benefits of an injured worker. Utilized latest methodologies and recent research to accurately measure the losses.

Measured the value of the lost earnings, fringe benefits and services for the survivors of a construction worker.

Measured the value of the services that would have been provided by a homemaker that was killed in an automobile accident. The female homemaker was survived by her husband and children.

Evaluated the economic conditions of the Port of New York and used this research in the formulation of a projection of the future earnings of a worker in a wrongful death case.

Measured the lost wages and benefits of a plaintiff after consideration of the employability opinions of a vocational expert who opened that the plaintiff had the ability to pursue gainful employment at wages only somewhat lower than his prior earnings level.

Measured the lost wages and benefits of a truck driver who was unemployable following an automobile accident.

Prepared a very detailed line of cross examination for an opposing economic expert. This line of cross examination included a wide range of issues ranging from credentials to the details of his economic loss report.

Retained by the defendant to value the losses of a wrongfully terminated employee after fully incorporating all proper mitigation activites.

Analyzed the employment records of a major advertising company to determine if the dismissal of one of its vice-presidents was part of a policy of age discrimination.

Measured the loss of wages and benefits, including pension benefits and stock options, of an allegedly wrongfully terminated employee. Offsetting, post-termination employment income that the plaintiff could use to mitigate his damages were incorporated into this analysis. In addition, further adjustments were made to account for the probability that the plaintiff would not have remained in the employment of the defendant after the termination date.