A Review of the Basics for Lost Profits (Part III) This is the third installment of this series. The first part provided an overall introduction to this review of the basics for lost profits. The second part reviewed the similarities and differences between estimating lost profits and litigious based business valuations. This installment takes a deeper look into the methods for calculating lost profits. Four methods based on the “but for” theory are examined. The discussion of each methodology highlights the approaches taken for calculating lost profits and weaknesses or concerns that arise with each method. Read Part I Here…
-
-
Principles, Methods, and Applications Everett P. Harry, III and Jeffrey H. Kinrich assembled 45 authors, chosen for their expertise in lost profits damages, and contributed and co-edited this comprehensive lost profits damages “how to” book. The authors pay tribute to Robert L. Dunn, among others, for his vision in identifying the need for this book. The book marks an attempt by the authors to provide a single-source reference for practitioners who are tasked with selecting an appropriate methodology for determining lost profits, carrying out the analysis, and potentially defending their work during proceedings. In this book review, we provide an…
-
For Calculating Future Lost Profits Robert Dunn and Everett Harry published their oft cited Modeling and Discounting Future Damages in 2002. The article laid out the process for assessing future lost profits and discounting them to present value. They argued modeling future losses reduced the uncertainty related to the loss calculation and therefore reduced the risk premium to be included in the discount rate. They also argued modeling future losses and using a risk-reduced, relatively low discount rate was easier for judges and juries to understand. While their discussion on a risk-adjusted discount rate has been somewhat controversial, the need…
-
How Can You Defend “Reasonable Certainty”? Here are Some Tips One of the common issues raised when an expert calculates damages is “reasonable certainty.” It is not uncommon for opposing counsel to suggest that the expert’s calculated damages are speculative, explain the editors at the Fraud Files blog. The calculation of damages necessarily requires estimates and assumptions. Something has happened, and a company or individual is claiming that there are lost profits because of it. We can never know with complete certainty what revenue or profits would have been if that incident or action had not taken place. Mathematical precision…