Neches was retained to determine whether IAG had invested more in NPC than it received back, and if so, how much. IAG claimed it had lost approximately $7 million more than it had invested through NPC. IAG and NPC, investment companies, had numerous inter-company transactions. Neches testified as an expert in AAA arbitration on behalf of defendant in this breach of contract and fraud case. Result: the jury found Linco’s patent was valid and willfully infringed, and they awarded lost profit of $138,363 – the exact amount to which Mr.
#CALEX ENGINEERING CO TRIAL#
Neches’ analysis and trial testimony were his calculations of Linco’s lost kit sales and the portion of Linco’s lost profit attributable to the infringed lamp holder. Top Lighting sold competing kits containing a light holder Linco claimed infringed its patented product. Linco sold online photo studio products, mostly in kits, that incorporated as a component a lamp holder protected by a design patent assigned to Linco. Neches testified as an expert in United States District Court, Central District of California on behalf of plaintiff in this patent infringement case. On appeal, the United States District Court for the District of Nevada affirmed the Judgment. Neches’ conclusion and calculation of the resulting loan balance. Neches testified that a substitution of lenders was shown by the time proximity between the repayment of principal to one individual lender and the receipt of additional loan proceeds from another individual lender. The key issue was whether certain transactions among the loan funders should be considered as payback of principal, reducing the loan balance, or as substitutions of lenders, maintaining the prior loan balance. Neches testified an expert in United States Bankruptcy Court, District of Nevada in this bankruptcy matter on behalf of a creditor regarding how much the debtor owed on a note issued by the creditor. Result: the Arbitrator rejected Plaintiff’s valuation and found the testimony of Mr.
Neches used the income approach to conclude the value of DroneBase was $20.3 million. Plaintiff’s valuation expert used the market approach to conclude the value of DroneBase was $139 million. A key issue was the value of the company as of May 2019.
Tamanaha, a minority owner of DroneBase, claimed his ownership share had been improperly diluted in early financing by the company. DroneBase provides unmanned drone services (e.g., aerial surveillance and mapping) nationwide.
0 kommentar(er)
