Primavera Familienstifung v. Askin

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• concluding that expert who offers factual conclusions dependent on his own interpretation of deposition testimony “does no more than counsel for the [plaintiff] will do in argument, ie., propound a particular interpretation of [the defendant’s] conduct”
• noting that “participation in a symbiotic fraudulent scheme” may be enough to find substantial assistance
• “[E]xecuting transactions, even ordinary course transactions, can constitute substantial assistance under some circumstances, such as where there is an extraordinary economic motivation to aid the fraud.”
• granting motion to exclude expert testimony where witness “does not serve as an expert but, rather, seeks to supplant the role of counsel in making argument at trial, and the role of the jury in interpreting the evidence”
• excluding expert testimony where the expert’s “report [did] not reveal how he [had] made use of his extensive qualifications” and his “characterization of the [industry] standard [was] so vague as to be unhelpful to the jury”
• “A claim for aiding and abetting fraud must be proven by clear and convincing evidence.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).