Dealing with value gaps in financial expert opinion evidence - ADRIC 2017 conference in St John's

How do experts come to such different conclusions?

I was a panelist with Suzanne Loomer (KPMG Toronto) and Bob Belliveau (McInnes Cooper Halifax) where we spoke of the key elements that underpin an expert’s opinion on business valuation or damages:

  1. facts of the case
  2. assumptions made by the expert
  3. the expert’s application of an appropriate methodology
  4. the expert’s own professional judgment.

We discussed how this occurs and how to bridge the ‘value gap’ in mediation and arbitration. Options included standard cross-examination, expert ‘hot-tubbing’, and joint reports.

If you would like a copy of the PowerPoint that accompanied the presentation, please let me know.

Leave a Reply