Most lawyers know how big a problem occupational fraud is in corporate America. They may even count as clients companies that have been defrauded and suffered significant losses. Yet a "not at my firm" attitude persists among many partners who take for granted the honesty and integrity of their colleagues and staff.
This paper presents a method for measuring economic damages in wrongful termination cases. Such cases present the damages expert with a problem since the available studies of earnings recovery after a job loss are based on a limited time period after a job loss and many workers never catch-up to the previous earnings level. A two-step approach is offered. First, the expert uses appropriate available empirical evidence to develop a typical earnings catch-up period. Second, the expert gathers information about case factors affecting the duration of the period to earnings catch-up. Using these factors, the expert modifies the base time period to develop a reasonable range of years for earnings catch-up. The ultimate choice of lost earnings is left for the court to decide, given the range presented by the expert. Cases directly or indirectly supporting this method are presented.
This article finds evidence consistent with the hypothesis that managers consider personal risk when making decisions that affect firm risk. I find that Chief Executive Officers (CEOs) with more personal wealth vested in firm equity tend to diversify. CEOs who are specialists at the existing technology tend to buy similar technologies. When specialists have many years vested, they tend to diversify, however. Poor performance in the existing lines of business is associated with movements into new lines of business.
Imagine you are lead counsel on an airline crash case in which more than 200 lives were lost, each involving a wrongful death case. A plaintiff attorney has hired an economist whose report on damages for one person, a Korean leather goods importer, exceeded $200 million. What should you do? Plaintiff’s expert is a Ph.D. from a top university who teaches economics and has many publications.
Damage experts don’t always agree regarding the appropriate discount rate and underlying methodology for a lost earnings claim and certain commonly applied methods actually provide a windfall to Plaintiffs. The chosen rate can make a meaningful difference in the economic damages conclusion. A recent article, "Lost Compensation Settlement Tool Allows You To Assess Economic Damages Accurately And Efficiently, Under Various Scenarios", demonstrates the significance of the applied rate on damages.
Financial experts are frequently asked aboutthe tax impact of damage awards, both paidand received. The complexities of the InternalRevenue Code (IRC) and judicial interpretations thereofmake determining the taxability of receipts or payments difficult.The same is true when dealing with the taxability of economic damages awarded to plaintiffs in civil actions. Nuances in the IRC and the judicial interpretations may make it difficult for a taxpayer to determine the taxability of his or her proceeds from a litigation award of personal economic damages. Whether or not such is taxable often depends on how the award of economic damages is categorized and/or described in the awarding documents.
Examining actual transactions in the private capital markets and court outcomes figure into whether holding a large block of stock equates with it control or even a premium. The internal and external factors, legal provisions, and property performance drive this result.
Several important economic factors appear to be moving unfavorably for the US at the moment, both domestically and abroad, and there are increasing indications that America may not be able to orchestrate a global resurgence on its own. Despite encouraging signs of domestic recovery, fundamental structural problems persist in the US economy. The National Debt now exceeds $18 Trillion, the Department of Agriculture confirms that well over 46 million Americans continue on food stamps, and key voices have stepped forward asking for a deeper look at several U.S. economic statistics. Last week long-time Gallup CEO Jim Clinton very boldly drew attention to the government's recent 5.6% unemployment numbers, questioning them as overly optimistic interpretations of data, and noting on CNBC that the percentage of Americans holding full-time jobs is now the lowest in 60 years.
Complex civil litigation routinely includes expert economic testimony. However, determining which expert economist is more credible may confound a lay jury. It may even confound the judge when ruling on the admissibility of expert economic testimony during the Daubert hearing.1 One solution rarely employed is for the court to appoint its own neutral economic expert under Rule 706 of the Federal Rules of Evidence2 when a lawsuit contains a claim for damages that will require rigorous analysis of data. Based on my recent experience as Judge Richard Posner's court-appointed neutral economic expert on damages in patent infringement litigation, I explain in this article how the wider use of Rule 706 would assist the judge and jury and would facilitate the prompt settlement of intellectual property, antitrust, securities, contract, business tort, and other complex disputes.3 The benefits to courts and litigants would surely exceed the costs.
Mail delivery is one of the few economic activities that has avoided the wave of deregulation and privatization that has swept network industries over the last few decades. This Article examines several questions regarding the business activities of Canada Post Corporation in a competitive environment. What should be the appropriate mandate of Canada Post? If Canada Post is a natural monopoly, what form of regulation best serves Canadian consumers? If Canada Post's delivery of letter mail is not a natural monopoly, what basis exists for retaining Canada Post's current statutory monopoly? What potential exists for Canada Post to abuse its statutory monopoly-and other statutory privileges and immunities-to compete unfairly against efficient private suppliers of postal services?