Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Beware the Gatekeeper
Last month, we explained that valuation issues come into play throughout Chapter 11 business reorganization cases. We discussed how to recognize the uncertainties underlying expert valuation conclusions; enterprise/going concern value; and the fact that the goal of any valuation is to make an estimate based on an informed judgment that embraces all facts relevant to future earning capacity and hence to present worth, including, of course, the nature and conditions of the properties, the past earnings record, and all circumstances that indicate whether or not the record is reliable criterion of future performance. We conclude this month with a discussion of expert evidence.
Admissibility of Expert Evidence and Disqualification Of Experts
The admissibility of expert testimony is a preliminary question of law for the court to determine. [Fed. R. Evid. 104(a); see also Celebrity Cruises, Inc., v. Essef Corp., 434 F. Supp. 2d 169, 175 (S.D.N.Y. 2006), citing Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 592, 113 S. Ct. 2786, 125 L. Ed. 2d 469 (1993)]. The proponent of the testimony bears the burden of demonstrating its admissibility by a preponderance of the evidence. Id. In order to be admissible, expert testimony must be relevant and based on a reliable foundation (Chartwell Liti-gation Trust v. Addus Healthcare, Inc. (In re Med Diversified, Inc.), 2006 Bankr. LEXIS 1677, 10 (Bankr. E.D.N.Y. 2006). Further, an expert must also be qualified as an expert in order for his or her testimony to be admissible as expert testimony. Id.). Expert evidence is relevant if it 'has any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable then it would be without the evidence.' (Fed. R. Evid. 401). Under Rule 702 of the Federal Rules of Evidence, expert testimony is reliable if: '(1) the testimony is based upon sufficient facts or data, (2) the testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods, and (3) the witness has applied the principles and methods reliably to the facts of the case.' Fed. R. Evid. 702; see also (In re Med Diversified, Inc) 2006 Bankr. LEXIS 1677, 10 (Bankr. E.D.N.Y. 2006).
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Removing Restrictive Covenants In New York
In Rockwell v. Despart, the New York Supreme Court, Third Department, recently revisited a recurring question: When may a landowner seek judicial removal of a covenant restricting use of her land?