Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%

Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.

Business Crimes BulletinFeaturesKickerLJN NewslettersNewsSections

Expert Testimony on Industry Practice

By Jodi Misher Peikin and Rachel Agress
February 29, 2016

Late last year, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, in United States v. Litvak, held that expert testimony regarding how a “specialized securities market” operated ' in this case, the Residential Mortgage-Backed Securities (RMBS) market ' was relevant and potentially “highly” probative of the question of whether the defendant's misstatements to investors were material. United States v. Litvak, 808 F.3d 160, 179, 182-84 (2d Cir. Dec. 8, 2015). Because juries are tasked with determining materiality ' i.e., whether there is “a substantial likelihood that a reasonable investor would find the ' misrepresentation important in making an investment decision” ( United States v. Vilar, 729 F.3d 62, 89 (2d Cir. 2013), cert. denied, ”' U.S. ””, 134 S.Ct. 2684, 189 L.Ed.2d 230 (2014)), the notion that experts can opine on overarching industry practice that is not case-specific, including that RMBS investment managers typically do not rely on representations (or misrepresentations) by broker-dealers, appears surprising.

In fact, however, a long line of Second Circuit cases dating back over 20 years have held that expert testimony of the type proffered in Litvak, relating to “ordinary practices in [an] industry,” can be probative of materiality where it “enable[s] the jury to evaluate a defendant's conduct against the standards of accepted practice,” so long as the testimony does not encompass an ultimate legal conclusion. United States v. Bilzerian, 926 F.2d 1285, 1295 (2d Cir. 1991); see also Marx & Co. v. Diners ' Club Inc., 550 F.2d 505, 509 (2d Cir. 1977), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 861, 98 S.Ct. 188, 54 L.Ed.2d 134 (1977) (finding that “[t]estimony concerning the ordinary practices of those engaged in securities business is admissible under the same theory as testimony concerning the ordinary practices of physicians or concerning other trade customs: to enable the jury to evaluate the conduct of the parties against the standards of ordinary practice in the industry.”).

This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only

  • 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

For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473

Read These Next
Why So Many Great Lawyers Stink at Business Development and What Law Firms Are Doing About It Image

Why is it that those who are best skilled at advocating for others are ill-equipped at advocating for their own skills and what to do about it?

Bankruptcy Sales: Finding a Diamond In the Rough Image

There is no efficient market for the sale of bankruptcy assets. Inefficient markets yield a transactional drag, potentially dampening the ability of debtors and trustees to maximize value for creditors. This article identifies ways in which investors may more easily discover bankruptcy asset sales.

The DOJ's Corporate Enforcement Policy: One Year Later Image

The DOJ's Criminal Division issued three declinations since the issuance of the revised CEP a year ago. Review of these cases gives insight into DOJ's implementation of the new policy in practice.

A Lawyer's System for Active Reading Image

Active reading comprises many daily tasks lawyers engage in, including highlighting, annotating, note taking, comparing and searching texts. It demands more than flipping or turning pages.

Protecting Innovation in the Cyber World from Patent Trolls Image

With trillions of dollars to keep watch over, the last thing we need is the distraction of costly litigation brought on by patent assertion entities (PAEs or "patent trolls"), companies that don't make any products but instead seek royalties by asserting their patents against those who do make products.