Damage quantification is often thought of as the primary role of a financial expert in a dispute. Over the years, we have learned that the analysis of damage issues often involves more than simply projecting lost profits into the future. What sets us apart is our ability to use the information we obtain as part of the damage quantification discovery process to assist our clients in the liability aspect of their case. In many cases, we find that the damage quantification process yields significant facts that help our clients better understand the circumstances and motivations that caused or contributed to the events that resulted in the dispute. Many can prepare or critique financial projections, but our experience provides our clients with well thought-out, fact-based analyses that often yields previously unknown information.

Representative Engagements

Complex Commercial Litigation – Fraud and Damages

  • Our client, a large Private Equity Firm, was preemptively sued in New York by one of its co-venturers, alleging, among other things breach-of-contract and fraud.
  • The business relationships among the litigants was extremely complex, with interests in various projects totaling more than $100 million.
  • The focus of the dispute was how the funds our client invested with the Private Equity firm could be deployed and separately, how the profits earned could be deployed.
  • Among other things, we traced the invested funds and profits through the opposing party’s accounting records and determined that the opposing party had violated several of the restrictive covenants contained in the parties’ Master Agreements.
  • Our expert report and testimony at trial in New York was instrumental in proving that not only had our client not committed fraud, but the plaintiff was actually responsible for the conduct that gave rise to the litigation.
  • The trier-of-fact awarded substantial damages to our client and dismissed the fraud claim.

Damage Quantification – Products Liability

  • Our client, a global manufacturer of HVAC equipment, was sued over alleged manufacturing defects in thousands of outdoor air conditioner condenser units that the plaintiff’s claimed were failing prematurely.
  • The plaintiffs alleged that the outdoor condenser units located in coastal areas should have been made with metal coils that contained a coating to prevent them from dissolving in hot, humid, salt laden environments.
  • Our client, in turn, sued the supplier of a component in the air conditioner condenser unit that it alleged caused the premature failure of the condenser unit.
  • Each unit that contained the defective component was inspected by a third party.
  • Our work involved the categorization of the inspection reports in an effort to determine the population of the units affected and then applying a formula that would determine the cost of either full replacement or repair of each of the affected units.
  • Our client used our work to obtain a settlement from the manufacturer of the component that was at issue.

Litigation – Multi-Year Supplier Overcharges

  • Provided discovery assistance to ensure all relevant information was obtained from the opposing party and the opposing party’s expert in connection with the allegations.
  • Performed detailed testing and analysis of the opposing expert’s damage calculation.
  • Created an alternative damage calculation.
  • Provided cross examination question assistance at various depositions.
  • Provided expert testimony at deposition and trial.
  • Assisted in development of evidence resulting in a new trial.
  • Assisted with the development of information resulting in the withdrawal of opposing expert’s damage calculation and settlement of the litigation prior to second trial.