Litigation and settlement negotiations often entail the valuation of competing damage claims. Damages can typically be thought of as the financial difference between what “would have” happened but for an allegedly wrongful act and what actually happened. Accordingly, damage estimation usually involves both theoretical construction of events that never occurred and accurate assessment of what did occur. Economic damage claims can only be evaluated and analyzed using economic analysis. Secretariat Economists professionals and financial analysts combine the skills needed to estimate damages and present the results in court or settlement negotiations. They use economic modeling, econometric estimation, and accounting techniques to produce sound and understandable presentations. Secretariat Economists personnel have analyzed damage claims and presented testimony relating to damages in federal and private antitrust cases, Lanham Act cases, breach of contract cases, breach of fiduciary duty cases, and other civil litigation matters.
Secretariat Economists’ damage analyses have proved persuasive in numerous matters such as these:
- Home Shopping Network v. GTE
- Alpo v. Ralston Purina
- R&D Business Systems, et al., v. Xerox Corporation
- Oncor and VAC v. AT&T
- Robert H. Kressin v. Bell Atlantic Mobile Systems, Inc.
- Trans-Alaska Pipeline Liability Fund
- Lunkenheimer v. PGL/Tomkins
- McNeil v. National Football League
- Folger Adam v. PMI Industries, Inc., et al.
- Cool Light Company, Inc., v. GTE Products Corporation
- Telecell Cellular, et al., v. GTE Mobilnet