Expert Witness Blog

In THE REAL ESTATE CLIENT: VALUATION SERVES IMPORTANT MASTERS IN LITIGATION CASES, forensic accounting expert witness Richard M. Squar, CPA, CVA, ABV, CFF, MBA-Taxation, writes:

Before the business appraiser can focus on the specific value of the limited partnership interest, the value of the entire partnership based on the sum of the individual asset values less the partnership liabilities needs to be determined. The appraisal valuation date is critical, such date normally concurring with the date the transaction(s) regarding alleged effects upon the injured party occurred. The valuation date may be expanded to include the date of trial.

Some valuation concepts have evolved to the point of becoming standards of value. It is important that users of a valuation expert understand which standard of value the business valuation expert utilizes. Deciding the appropriate standard of value to use is where the expert often begins.

Biotechnology means any technological application that uses biological systems, living organisms, or derivatives thereof, to make or modify products or processes for specific use. For instance, biotechnology is applied to improve or facilitate cellular processes such as energy metabolism, gene transfer between unrelated species, or the engineering of enzymes for large scale production of drugs.

Green biotechnology deals with the use of environmentally-friendly solutions as an alternative to traditional agriculture, horticulture, and animal breeding processes. An example is the designing of transgenic plants that are modified for improved flavor, for increased resistance to pests and diseases, or for enhanced growth in adverse weather conditions. Biotechnology expert witnesses may opine on biofortification, metabolic manipulation, etc.

Read more: biologyonline.org.

Litigation funding expert witnesses may opine on litigation financial options and settlements. In Third Party Financing of Litigation, Paul H. Rubin, Department of Economics Emory University, writes:

The common law has long forbidden third party investment in lawsuits based on “champerty” and related doctrines. More recently, these restrictions have been relaxed, although they may not have been entirely eliminated in the U.S. While it might appear efficient to allow such investment, in fact it is not. The effect of relaxing restrictions will be to increase litigation.

When there are benefits of litigation these are deterrence of harmful activities. However, the U.S. already goes much farther than any other country in allowing class actions and other group based litigation, and so any benefits of increased litigation are likely to be small or nonexistent.

Litigation finance expert witnesses may opine on litigation financial options and attorneys fees, among other topics. Litigation funding is a practice in which individuals who are plaintiffs in lawsuits receive money from firms and individuals who take a lien on the proceeds of a personal injury suit in return for ready cash. It is not considered a loan as the money does not have to be repaid if the plaintiff’s law suit is unsuccessful. It is a nonrecourse debt. Funding companies also advance money to attorneys against anticipated legal fees earned in a personal injury matter.

In A Fee Limitation Rule for Litigation Finance, Michael B. Abramowicz of The George Washington University School of Law writes:

Interest rates on such loans are accordingly well in excess of typical market rates, but the arrangements may be beneficial to plaintiffs who do not have enough cash on hand to finance a lawsuit and who either cannot obtain funds through traditional loan sources or do not want to risk the possibility of facing a large debt if the lawsuit fails. The social welfare case for litigation finance is simple. Such financing enables liquidity-constrained plaintiffs to bring more cases and to prosecute cases more effectively. Increased funding for litigation should thus reduce legal error and help achieve the legal system’s goals, including both compensation and deterrence of negligent or wrongful acts.

Pesticide products expert witnesses may opine on fungicides, herbicides, and insecticides. On their website, the Chemical Producers & Distributors Association announces that an updated version of the Pesticide Registration Manual, also known as the “Blue Book,” is now available on EPA’s web site. The manual describes EPA’s review and decision making process for registering a pesticide product and its use. Detailed information for pesticide registrants concerning their responsibilities before, during and after the review process is also included in the manual. EPA is hoping to make available in the near future an electronic version of the “Blue Book” in PDF format. The Agency intends to make subsequent updates to individual chapters of the manual as needed. The “Blue Book” may be accessed at http://www.epa.gov/opprd001/registrationmanual/.

Pesticides expert witnesses may opine on pesticide contamination, insects, and pest control. In Keeping an Eye on Washington, July 2010, the Chemical Producers & Distributors Association writes:

In the June 15, 2010 Federal Register, EPA published a proposed rule to amend the pesticide container and containment regulations to provide a one-year extension of the labeling compliance date from August 16, 2010 to August 16, 2011. Under the proposal, pesticide products released for shipment by a registrant after August 16, 2011 would be required to bear a label that complies with the container requirements. The pesticide container and containment regulations, promulgated on August 16, 2006, include requirements for container design; procedures, standards, and label language to facilitate removal of pesticide residue prior to container disposal or recycling, and criteria for containment of stationary pesticide containers and procedures for container refilling operations.

A final rule published on October 29, 2008 amended the 2006 regulations to extend the original compliance date of August 16, 2009 to August 16, 2010. However, EPA has concluded there is insufficient time to change all labels by the revised August 16, 2010 compliance date due to several factors: 1) more antimicrobial product labels than expected require alternate rinsing instructions rather than the standard text as set forth in the regulations (such statements on the label must be made through the more time-consuming amendment process rather than through the more simplified notification mechanism); 2) EPA’s position on the appropriate container-related statements, particularly rinsing and treatment of rinsate, for certain pesticides has changed over time as a result of experience with product-by-product label reviews and this, EPA notes, has created confusion within the registrant community; and, 3) the length of time for states to review and approve labels is increasing due to staffing reductions and furloughs brought about by budget shortfalls.