Opinions
Greenwich CT / San Juan PR
Max Holmes as an Expert Witness offered by a Plaintiff:
“Finally, defendants say that the Court should exclude [Max] Holmes’s testimony as unhelpful to the trier of fact. This argument, too, falls in short order. Holmes’s testimony is about the circumstances surrounding the . . . transaction and its aftermath that were unusual for the financial industry. . . . Though defendants paint Holmes as testifying about his legal conclusions as to whether defendants formed a group and his speculation about defendants’ mental states, what Holmes does is apply the expertise he has from his many years on Wall Street to the specific facts of this case. That’s exactly the sort of testimony that would be helpful to a jury.”
Federal District Court Judge
Max Holmes as an Expert Witness offered by a Defendant:
“Mr. Max Holmes, [Defendant’s] expert witness on bond financings, determined the date on which the [regulatory agency] removed [Plaintiff] from the . . . list by researching the [regulatory agency’s] website. Neither party offered these documents as exhibits in evidence but the dates are undisputed. . . . The Tribunal notes that Mr. Holmes’s research and presentation was invaluable to the Tribunal regarding the obstacles that were present when [Defendant] was attempting to bring a [Plaintiff] debt offering to market . . . . Reviewing contemporaneous records kept by [Defendant], Mr. Holmes was able to form a compelling expert opinion as to why the bond offering failed. . . . [W], a salesperson working on commission, would often show optimism while the significant legal obstacles hobbled the efforts of the bankers and the lawyers. Mr. Holmes described this as “cheerleading” . . . and that description makes perfect sense.”
Final Award Opinion of American
Arbitration Association (AAA) Arbitrator
Whom you select as your Expert Witness makes a difference.
Past performance does not guarantee future results.