Joel N. Kreizman
Partner
732-568-8363 jkreizman@sh-law.comKey Contacts
Back
The Delaware Court of Chancery recently addressed an interesting evidential question — do expert witnesses need to be human beings?
Despite the growing number of legal rights bestowed on corporations (free speech, freedom of religion, etc.), the court ruled that expert witnesses couldn’t take the witness stand.
The question stemmed from a consolidated shareholder challenge and appraisal proceeding arising out of a take-private deal involving Dole Food Co. Inc. (Dole). The defendants in the case, which include Dole founder and CEO, David Murdock, sought to call an investment bank to testify regarding the company’s value at the time of the transaction.
The plaintiffs objected, arguing that Stifel, Nicolaus & Co. Inc. could not serve as an expert witness because it is a corporation and not a human being. As argued by the plaintiffs, the distinction is important because a corporate expert witness could claim to rely on the collective knowledge and experience of all of its employees and agents, while a biological person only can rely on the more limited knowledge and experience that a living mind might accumulate.
Vice Chancellor J. Travis Laster of Delaware Chancery Court held that an expert witness must be a biological person. While acknowledging that corporations are treated as “persons” under many aspects of the law, he concluded that they cannot satisfy the definition of witness under Delaware law.
As further explained in his opinion:
Because of its lack of a body and mind, a corporation only can act through human agents. Lacking a voice, a corporation cannot testify. Lacking ears, it cannot hear. Lacking a mind, it cannot have personal knowledge or a memory to be refreshed. Lacking a conscience, it cannot take an oath or provide an affirmation. And because of its incorporeal nature, it cannot even meet Delaware’s statutory requirement that a person taking an oath do so ‘with the uplifted hand.’
Because the defendants would suffer prejudice if forced to proceed without an expert, the court ruled that the defendants could substitute the corporation’s managing director, Seth Ferguson, as their expert witness. “Ferguson has a body and brain. Assuming he is otherwise qualified, he can serve as an expert witness,” Laster wrote. “Stifel has neither and cannot.”
- Practices: Corporate Transactions & Business
- Locations: Red Bank, NJ, New York City, Little Falls, NJ
No Aspect of the advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court. Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances.
Related Posts
See all
New York NDA Requirements for Businesses
Non-disclosure agreements (NDAs) remain a critical tool for protecting sensitive business information. However, New York NDA requirements have evolved, and businesses must ensure these agreements are carefully drafted to remain enforceable. In a competitive market like New York City, NDAs are commonly used to protect proprietary information, client relationships, and strategic plans. At the same […]
Author: Dan Brecher
New Jersey Will Contest Grounds Explained
How Courts Evaluate Testamentary Capacity and Undue Influence Will contests in New Jersey are difficult to win, given the strong presumption that a properly executed will reflects the testator’s intent. However, challenges based on lack of testamentary capacity and undue influence remain common, particularly where there are concerns about mental capacity or the involvement of […]
Author: Marc J. Comer
Legal Issues Before Bringing on Investors
Bringing on outside investors can provide the capital and strategic support a business needs to grow. However, raising capital also introduces important legal, financial, and operational considerations. Before bringing on investors, businesses should address key legal issues to reduce risk, streamline investor due diligence, and position the company for long-term success. Early preparation signals that […]
Author: Dan Brecher
SECURE 2.0 RMD Planning Strategies
How the Updated Law Shapes Retirement and Estate Planning The SECURE 2.0 Act of 2022 materially reshapes the required minimum distribution (RMD) landscape, extending tax deferral opportunities while accelerating distribution requirements for many beneficiaries. For high-net-worth individuals and families, these changes are not merely technical. They require a reassessment of retirement income strategies, beneficiary planning, […]
Author: Marc J. Comer
Buying Commercial Property in New Jersey: Legal Guide for Small Businesses
Small businesses considering buying commercial property in New Jersey must evaluate a range of legal, financial, and operational factors. While ownership can offer long-term value and control, it also introduces significant risks if not properly structured. This guide outlines key considerations to help New Jersey business owners make informed decisions, minimize legal exposure, and successfully […]
Author: Robert L. Baker, Jr.
The SEC’s Latest Guidance on Applying Federal Securities Laws to Tokenized Securities
On January 28, 2026, staff of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission’s Divisions of Corporation Finance, Investment Management, and Trading and Markets issued a joint statement clarifying how existing federal securities laws apply to tokenized securities. The SEC’s “Statement on Tokenized Securities” does not establish new law, but it does provide greater clarity on the […]
Author: Dan Brecher
No Aspect of the advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court. Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances.
Sign up to get the latest from our attorneys!
Explore What Matters Most to You.
Consider subscribing to our Firm Insights mailing list by clicking the button below so you can keep up to date with the firm`s latest articles covering various legal topics.
Stay informed and inspired with the latest updates, insights, and events from Scarinci Hollenbeck. Our resource library provides valuable content across a range of categories to keep you connected and ahead of the curve.