
Joel N. Kreizman
Partner
732-568-8363 jkreizman@sh-law.comPartner
732-568-8363 jkreizman@sh-law.comDespite 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.”
No Aspect of the advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court. Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances.
Your home is likely your greatest asset, which is why it is so important to adequately protect it. Homeowners insurance protects you from the financial costs of unforeseen losses, such as theft, fire, and natural disasters, by helping you rebuild and replace possessions that were lost While the definition of “adequate” coverage depends upon a […]
Author: Jesse M. Dimitro
Making a non-contingent offer can dramatically increase your chances of securing a real estate transaction, particularly in competitive markets like New York City. However, buyers should understand that waiving contingencies, including those related to financing, or appraisals, also comes with significant risks. Determining your best strategy requires careful analysis of the property, the market, and […]
Author: Jesse M. Dimitro
Business Transactional Attorney Zemel to Spearhead Strategic Initiatives for Continued Growth and Innovation Little Falls, NJ – February 21, 2025 – Scarinci & Hollenbeck, LLC is pleased to announce that Partner Fred D. Zemel has been named Chair of the firm’s Strategic Planning Committee. In this role, Mr. Zemel will lead the committee in identifying, […]
Author: Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC
Big changes sometimes occur during the life cycle of a contract. Cancelling a contract outright can be bad for your reputation and your bottom line. Businesses need to know how to best address a change in circumstances, while also protecting their legal rights. One option is to transfer the “benefits and the burdens” of a […]
Author: Dan Brecher
What is a trade secret and why you you protect them? Technology has made trade secret theft even easier and more prevalent. In fact, businesses lose billions of dollars every year due to trade secret theft committed by employees, competitors, and even foreign governments. But what is a trade secret? And how do you protect […]
Author: Ronald S. Bienstock
If you are considering the purchase of a property, you may wonder — what is title insurance, do I need it, and why do I need it? Even seasoned property owners may question if the added expense and extra paperwork is really necessary, especially considering that people and entities insured by title insurance make fewer […]
Author: Patrick T. Conlon
No Aspect of the advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court. Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances.
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.
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.”
Let`s get in touch!
Sign up to get the latest from the Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC attorneys!