![]() During 2013-2014, DCO Beach Walk constructed a 173-unit apartment building across the street from Wheel Solutions, which operated a customization business for exotic automobiles. Neches testified as an expert in California Superior Court, Orange County on behalf of defendant in this nuisance case. Result: the judge ruled that IAG was entitled to $0. He demonstrated that in fact NPC returned to IAG $559,000 more than IAG had invested. Neches reconstructed the cash flows between the two companies. 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 COMPANY TRIALNeches’ 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. In order to qualify for the PPP loan amount received, Calex Engineering Company's 2019 payroll expenses are estimated to be at least $9.6M.Eli Tamanaha v. Please Note: Information on estimated payroll and compensation based on PPP rules is provided for informational purposes only.īased on the standard PPP eligibility formula, it may be possible to estimate the payroll expenses represented by a company on their PPP application (see details above). CALEX ENGINEERING COMPANY FULLAdditionally, because this standard calculation is based on the maximum loan eligibility, it will under-estimate payroll costs if the business did not apply for the full amount of loan to which it was entitled based on its 2019 payroll expenses and other variables described above. ![]() ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |