• HOME
  • SPEAKING ENGAGEMENTS
  • PROFILE
  • ALLEN MATKINS
  • CONTACT
Print Email Shortlink

Even When You Expect To Win The Value Of Your Suit May Be Negative

By Keith Paul Bishop on November 28, 2012 in California Sui Generis

In prior posts, I’ve written about risk.  See “To The SEC, ‘Risk’ Is A Four Letter Word“.  In my view, risk should be understood as the product of the probabilities of a range of outcomes and the consequences of those outcomes.  In assessing risk, both positive and negative outcomes should be considered.  Yesterday, I wrote about surprising legal holdings in Douglas E. Barnhart, Inc. v. CMC Fabricators, Inc., 2012 Cal. App. LEXIS 1202 (Nov. 20, 2012).  The case presents an interesting risk analysis scenario.

The plaintiff sued for only about $66,000 and the defendant paid its lawyers $150,000 to defend this claim.  Let’s assume that the plaintiff paid a lesser amount in legal fees to prosecute its claim – $100,000.  If we assume that the court could have awarded anything between $0 and $66,000, then the plaintiff’s risk would have been the probability of each award multiplied by the amount.  To keep things simple, let’s assume the plaintiff believes that only three positive outcomes are possible:

Probability

Outcome

Expected Return (Risk)

.1

$10,000

$1,000

.1

$25,000

$2,500

.4

$66,000

$26,400

   

Total Expected Return:  $29,900

If we assume that the probability of the plaintiff being awarded its attorneys’ fees is equal to the overall risk of prevailing on the contract (i.e., the plaintiff will receive 100% of its attorneys’ fees if it obtains any of the three possible awards), then we should add another $60,000 (.6*$100,000).  The plaintiff’s overall positive risk is $89,900.  But we must also account for the possible negative outcomes.  By the plaintiff’s own reckoning, it has a 40% chance of not receiving any award (i.e., losing on the contract).  If it loses, it will pay 100% of  its attorneys’ fees ($100,000) and there is a risk that the court will award the defendant its attorney’s as well, as happened in the actual case.  The expected loss is $100,000 ((.4 *$100,000) + (.4*$150,000)).  The plaintiff’s expected return under these assumptions is -$10,100.  Although the plaintiff’s expected return is a loss, pursuing the litigation would result in a smaller expected loss than doing nothing.

If we assume that the defendant shares the same conclusions about the probable outcomes, the expected damage award will be $29,900.  If the defendant loses, it will also have to pay the plaintiff’s and its own attorneys.  The probability of this occurring is $150,000 ((.6*$100,000) + (.6*$150,000)).   Thus, the expected return for the defendant is -$179,900. 

This example is, of course, based on arbitrary assumptions that I’ve made for the sake of illustration.  It also greatly simplifies the problem.  Nonetheless, I present it as an illustration of how to think about risk.

risk
  • Related Stories
  • Most Popular
  • If You’re Relying On The Signature Of Two Officers, You May Want To Think Again
  • Court Explicates Scope of Usury Exemption For Real Estate Brokers
  • Supreme Court To Decide If It Will Decide Whether Section 16 Plaintiff Has Constitutional Standing
  • But Wait, California May Require Even More In Annual Reports To Shareholders
  • California Requires Many Foreign Corporations To Send Annual Financial Statements To Shareholders
  • The Salon Sub Rosa And Nevada Corporate Law
  • Conflict Minerals Bill In Suspense File (For Now)
  • Concurrent Jurisdiction Found For Covered Class Actions
  • Nevada Supreme Court Adopts Delaware Approach To Fair Value Burden Of Proof
  • SEC Proposes John Wilkes Booth Rules
  • If I Were A Carpenter, I’d Build A Better Proxy
  • CalPERS’ Annus Horribilis: How Much Worse Will It Get?
← Previous Next →

AUTHOR

Keith Paul Bishop
Partner
(949) 553-1313
kbishop@allenmatkins.com
CONTACT ME

RECOGNITION

NEWSLETTER

TOPICS

  • Accountants
  • Administrative Procedure
  • Attorney-Client Privilege/Work Product
  • Broker-Dealers
  • California Securities Laws
  • California Sui Generis
  • CalPERS/CalSTRS
  • Choice of Law/Conflict of Law
  • Corporate Governance
  • Department of Corporations
  • Derivative Suits
  • Enforcement & Investigations
  • Fairness Hearings
  • Finance Lenders
  • Financial Institutions
  • Investment Advisers
  • JOBS Act
  • Legislation
  • Limited Liability Companies
  • Mergers & Acquisitions
  • Nevada Corporations
  • Non-Compete Agreements
  • Partnerships
  • Professional Responsibility
  • Pseudo-Foreign Corporations
  • Public Records Act/FOIA
  • Secretary of State
  • Securities Litigation
  • Uncategorized
  • Video

YOUTUBE

TWITTER

FACEBOOK

CALENDAR

November 2012
M T W T F S S
« Oct   Dec »
 1234
567891011
12131415161718
19202122232425
2627282930  

Copyright © 2013 California Corporate & Securities Law.

Powered by WordPress and News.

  • follow:follow:
  • Become my Facebook friend Become my Facebook friend
  • Connect with me Connect with me
  • RSS RSS
  • Tweet with me Tweet with me