For the third consecutive year, Secretariat has been ranked No. 1 in the Global Arbitration Review (GAR) Expert Witness Firms’ Power Index 2026, unveiled March 26 at the GAR Awards during Paris Arbitration Week. 

The GAR Power Index is the definitive global benchmark of excellence for expert firms in arbitration. Rankings are determined through a rigorous evaluation that includes factors such as of the number of hearings, value of claims, and the collective strength of a firm’s expert rankings in Lexology Index. Together, these metrics offer a comprehensive view of a firm’s performance, impact, and market leadership. 

“Earning the top spots in GAR’s rankings for three consecutive years speaks to the unique consistency, depth, and quality that our experts bring to their work every day,” says Managing Director Don Harvey. “This accolade also affirms the trust our clients place in us to deliver elite-quality work across practices and geographies.” 

Secretariat’s dedication to developing talent, expanding our footprint in key markets, and deepening our expertise offerings continues to drive the firm’s growth and reinforce our position as a global leader in the arbitration community and beyond. 

See the full rankings here: https://globalarbitrationreview.com/survey/gar-100/2026  

by Farheen Khan

Human factors experts play a critical role in infant formula and nutrition‑product litigation because the central questions in these cases—what caregivers perceive, understand, retain, and ultimately do—are questions about human capabilities and limitations, not merely regulatory compliance. In the ongoing infant formula disputes, including the NEC multidistrict litigation and parallel state‑court proceedings, claims often hinge on whether manufacturers provided warnings and instructions that were sufficiently clear, prominent, and actionable for caregivers and clinicians who may be operating under time pressure, fatigue, and varying levels of health literacy.

An evidence‑based human factors analysis can help courts distinguish preventable, use‑related risk from the inherent residual risk associated with the product. This framework clarifies what hazards were reasonably foreseeable, what aspects of communication could have been controlled through better design, and where the appropriate boundaries of responsibility fall among manufacturers, healthcare providers, and caregivers. Such expert analysis provides essential context for evaluating the adequacy of warnings and the reasonableness of manufacturer conduct under the applicable legal standards.

A human factors analysis in product‑related litigation typically begins with a systematic review of the communication system at issue. This includes an examination of the design and content of labels, instructions for use, preparation charts, pictograms, and any supplemental print or digital materials, evaluated against established research on how individuals perceive and respond to warnings. A human factors expert assesses the adequacy of typography, contrast, signal words, pictograms, sequencing of steps, and the articulation of consequence and avoidance statements. This allows the expert to opine on whether the information provided was sufficiently conspicuous, comprehensible, and practical, and whether it could reasonably have supported safe behavior when read and followed.

Because directions for use must share limited labeling real estate with nutrition facts, preparation charts, and mandatory regulatory text, manufacturers frequently confront inherent constraints. A human factors expert can assist the trier of fact by explaining these constraints and how a manufacturer balanced completeness with the need for clarity and brevity. By relying on risk‑communication strategies supported by peer‑reviewed literature, a human factors expert can further demonstrate the reasonableness of a manufacturer’s approach to informing consumers, caregivers, and healthcare professionals. Such analysis provides critical context for evaluating whether a communication system met industry expectations and foreseeable‑use standards under the applicable legal framework.

Recognized frameworks can provide benchmarks. The Infant Formula Act and FDA’s infant formula labeling regulations at 21 C.F.R. §107 set specific expectations for directions for preparation and use. FDA labeling requirements include directions for storage, agitation, dilution or reconstitution, sterilization of water and bottle components when necessary, pictograms depicting the major steps for preparation, a warning about the need to follow directions, and a statement about consulting a health care provider for guidance. Human factors experts can map label elements to FDA requirements, demonstrating regulatory alignment of the label, and help courts determine whether alleged inadequacies reflect a true warning defect or a broader, multi‑actor systems issue.

In litigation involving microbial hazards, whether the on‑package and caregiver‑facing materials reasonably conveyed risk associated with the product, environmental factors (e.g., water source), and user behavior (e.g., refrigeration, disposal, cleaning) may be questioned. Public health guidance from the CDC and the FDA emphasizes hand hygiene, equipment sanitation, safe preparation, and, when appropriate, the use of ready‑to‑feed sterile liquid formulas for higher‑risk infants. In such litigation, human factors experts can identify the expected and proper channels to provide additional information, examine whether on‑package instructions and caregiver‑facing instructions obtained from various sources reasonably conveyed such information, whether caregivers carried out the steps provided or asked for, and whether the lack of such information on the package affected the behavior of caregivers and contributed to foreseeable misuse.

What caregivers can reasonably accomplish must be understood against documented literacy constraints. Research has found that a large proportion of U.S. caregivers have limited health literacy (Yin et al., 2009). A study evaluating powdered formula instructions found readability and comprehension difficulty for critical sections on a label (Wallace et al., 2016). A human factors expert can separate what was knowable in the relevant time periods, what constraints exist on label real estate, and whether additional information would reasonably improve comprehension, oversimplify technical requirements, or become a source of information overload for caregivers.

Because many infant formula and pediatric nutrition products are administered under clinician direction, particularly in NICU environments, a human factors analysis can help clarify the appropriate division of responsibility for risk communication. This includes distinguishing between information intended solely for healthcare professionals and the messages that must appear on consumer‑facing labeling. In practice, it is reasonable for caregiver‑directed materials to focus on tasks within the caregiver’s control, such as hygiene practices, mixing procedures, storage conditions, and discard intervals. Conversely, information directed at clinicians should support clinical judgment, product selection, and individualized patient care.

Publicly available resources, such as CDC guidance on bottle‑feeding and equipment cleaning, along with materials from state nutrition programs, illustrate the type of step‑wise, concrete behavioral instructions that can meaningfully reduce risk when aligned with on‑package directions. Harmonizing these evidence‑based practices with product labeling can improve compliance, mitigate microbial hazards, and help prevent dosing and preparation errors. A human factors framework provides the structure needed to evaluate whether the communication system reasonably supported each user group in carrying out their respective responsibilities.

• Given the state of knowledge and standards at the time, did the communication system make it reasonably likely that intended users would be able to notice, understand, and follow the steps that could reduce risk?
• Should risks about, for example, Enterobacter, Cronobacter or NEC be reasonably expected to be on consumer‑facing labels versus conveyed within clinician‑directed feeding protocols?
• Should products handed out by hospitals be expected to be accompanied by instructions from health care providers?
• Did marketing content undermine warnings?
• Did the company do enough to keep pace with external guidance and emerging knowledge?

Extensive research in warnings science demonstrates that even well‑crafted warnings may fail to elicit safe behavior if they are not noticed, read, understood, and followed. In the courtroom, systematic human factors testimony can clarify that warnings alone cannot eliminate all risk, nor can they replace the behavioral safeguards, environmental controls, and professional clinical judgment required in hospital and home settings, particularly when caring for medically fragile infants. Human factors experts can, however, evaluate whether a manufacturer took reasonable, evidence‑based steps to reduce use‑related risk. This includes assessing whether on‑package communications were consistent with prevailing standards and public health guidance at the time, and whether the manufacturer maintained an appropriate process to monitor real‑world use, incorporate feedback, and improve its communication system over time. Such analysis helps delineate the respective responsibilities of manufacturers, healthcare providers, and caregivers, providing the court with a clear framework for understanding how risk is distributed and managed across users and contexts.

How Can Secretariat Assist?

Secretariat’s Human Factors experts assist courts and litigants in infant formula and nutrition‑product litigation by evaluating whether warnings and instructions reasonably supported safe use under foreseeable conditions. We assess whether caregiver‑ and clinician‑facing communications could be noticed, understood, and followed in real‑world contexts. Our analyses examine the full communication system against applicable FDA requirements, prevailing public health guidance, and human factors science available at the relevant time and differentiates alleged warning or instruction defects from risks reasonably addressed through clinical judgment, hospital feeding protocols, and caregiver practices. This systems-based analysis provides technical context to assess the reasonableness of manufacturer conduct and understand the role relevant stakeholders play in managing risk.

---

References

1. Yin, HS, Johnson, M, Mendelsohn, AL, Abrams, MA, Sanders, LM, & Dreyer, BP (2009). The Health Literacy of Parents in the United States: A Nationally Representative Study. Pediatrics, 124(Suppl 3), S289–S298.
2. Wallace, LS, Rosenstein, PF, and Gal, N (2016). Readability and Content Characteristics of Powdered Infant Formula Instructions in the United States. Maternal and Child Health Journal, 20, 889-894.

Managing Director Michael Koenig, Director Jéssica Dutra, and Director Pablo Varas contributed to the “2025 Annual Review of Antitrust Law Developments” from the ABA Antitrust Law Section.

Their chapter contributions include:

• Jéssica Dutra — Chapter IV — Joint Ventures
• Michael Koenig — Chapter VIII — Civil Government Enforcement
• Pablo Varas — Chapter II — Monopolization and Related Offenses

For over 40 years, this publication and its annual supplements have been recognized as among the most authoritative and comprehensive research tools for antitrust practitioners. The 2025 edition summarizes key developments in the courts, at the agencies, and in Congress.

Explore the latest developments and connect with our team to discuss what they may mean for your business.

In our latest white paper, Driving Transparency and Accountability: Saudi Arabia’s Expanding Reach in Enforcement and Disclosure, Managing Director Ralph Stobwasser and Director Tarek Bleik examine Saudi Arabia’s expanding enforcement activity and evolving transparency framework. The paper analyses the Kingdom’s approach to anti-corruption enforcement and financial transparency as part of its broader governance transformation under Vision 2030.

This publication forms part of our Saudi Arabia anti-corruption and transparency series, which tracks enforcement activity and regulatory developments across the Kingdom. Earlier papers in the series include Integrity and Accountability: Anti-Corruption Enforcement in Saudi Arabia (January 2025) and Mid-Year 2025 Update: Nazaha’s Progress in the Fight Against Corruption (September 2025). 

The latest report provides a data-led overview of the Oversight and Anti-Corruption Authority (Nazaha)’s reported activities in 2025, including trends in inspections, investigations and arrests across key government sectors. It also examines the wider economic-crime control framework developing in Saudi Arabia, including new counter-fraud expectations, beneficial ownership transparency, and evolving disclosure standards as capital markets open further to foreign investors.

If you would like to discuss any of the issues raised in this paper, please get in touch with our team.

Eric Poer,¹ a Managing Director in Secretariat’s Global Investigations & Disputes practice, led a forensic accounting team retained on behalf of Lehman Brothers’ unsecured creditors in connection with one of the largest bankruptcies in U.S. history. The high-stakes dispute centered on the U.S. Internal Revenue Service (IRS) disallowing the creditors’ $450 million in foreign tax credits tied to Lehman’s bankruptcy, and to the firm’s complex securities lending and cross-border trading activities.

Mr. Poer led the workproduct and outside expert support team, serving as the financial analysis and data analytics lead supporting the creditors’ tax claims in federal bankruptcy court.

Although the disputed trades represented only a fraction of Lehman’s global business, government expert witnesses—presented by the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) on behalf of the IRS—characterized the activity as entirely tax‑motivated. Mr. Poer and his team demonstrated that Lehman’s UK subsidiary, Lehman Brothers International (Europe) (LBIE), generated millions in profits from the disputed trades, providing evidence of legitimate commercial purpose rather than a tax‑driven scheme.

To fortify the rebuttal, Mr. Poer conducted a targeted industry expert witness search and secured Ed Blount, a leading securities lending and finance practitioner with specialized knowledge and experience in the foreign tax credits space.

Working closely with Mr. Blount, Mr. Poer and his team forensically mapped cross-border loans by LBIE to demonstrate their economic substance and validate the legitimacy of the $450 million in foreign tax credits challenged by the IRS. They also delivered a key analytical breakthrough: LBIE routinely paid higher U.S. borrowing costs for certain non‑U.K. international stock even when no foreign tax credits were claimed, demonstrating that those costs reflected normal market practice—not evidence of tax motivation.

Mr. Blount’s testimony demonstrated how the DOJ’s experts fundamentally mischaracterized the economics of Lehman’s global equities business. To further support the rebuttal, Mr. Poer’s team showed that the DOJ’s expert had effectively analyzed profitability “backwards,” emphasizing sourcing costs rather than revenue‑generating uses of the borrowed securities. In rejecting the foreign tax credits, the IRS had applied an ‘economically wasteful’ standard that would have invalidated the majority of Lehman’s routine intercompany trading activity.

Mr. Blount, supported by Mr. Poer and his team, translated complex and detailed trading analyses into straightforward, credible testimony that aided the bankruptcy judge in a favorable decision for the client—demonstrating how deep industry knowledge, meticulous data analysis, and compelling expert testimony can overcome even the most aggressive regulatory challenges.

---

1. As of May 2024, Eric is a Managing Director at Secretariat. At the time of this engagement, Eric was a Senior Managing Director with FTI Consulting. ↩︎

We are pleased to support the launch of “First Things First: Why Technical Competence Must Precede AI Literacy for Lawyers”, a new white paper from Code & Counsel, sponsored by Secretariat and Association of Certified e-Discovery Specialists (ACEDS).

Code & Counsel brings together leading women in legal technology, e-discovery and data intelligence to explore the responsible use of AI across the legal profession.

As AI becomes more embedded in legal practice, law firms face a growing challenge. How can these tools be adopted responsibly while maintaining professional standards and client trust? The paper explains that responsible AI adoption depends on a strong foundation in core legal technologies, data governance, collaboration tools and security practices.

Key themes explored in the paper include:

• Why technical competence remains a critical operational baseline for modern legal practice
• The risks of adopting AI tools without established technology foundations
• Growing expectations from clients, courts and regulators around responsible technology use
• A staged path forward for firms built on training, readiness assessments and governance controls

Firms that strengthen their technical foundations today will be far better positioned to adopt AI confidently, responsibly and at scale. Building that foundation is essential to protecting clients, meeting professional obligations and sustaining trust in legal services.

The white paper is authored by Kassi Burns (King & Spalding), Angela O’Neal (Maynard Nexsen) Fiona Campbell (Field Fisher), Peg Gianuca (Walt Disney), Jennifer Williams (Vinson & Elkins), Maribel Rivera (ACEDS), and Secretariat Managing Director Richard Finkelman.

Secretariat is proud to share that Managing Director Meera Wagman has been recognized by The Consulting Report as one of The Top 25 Women Leaders in Consulting for 2026.

This prestigious honor highlights the women driving the future of the consulting industry through their incredible leadership, knowledge, and industry contributions. The individuals recognized are among the industry’s top professionals, helping organizations navigate momentous transformations and complex business, technology, and regulatory challenges.

“Meera’s leadership reflects the very best of our profession. She brings clarity and precision to high-stakes environments, and a deep commitment to developing the next generation of leaders,” says Don Harvey, Managing Director. “As one of Secretariat’s earliest team members, she has helped shape the culture, client focus, and standards of excellence that continue to define our firm today. Her recognition among the Top 25 Women Leaders in Consulting is a testament to the profound impact she has on our firm, and across our industry.”

Meera is trusted by global clients for her technical rigor and exceptional industry expertise. She has more than two decades of experience, including specialized knowledge in delay and disruption analysis, claims, project controls, and construction and project management. Recognized by Lexology Index as a Global Elite Thought Leader and widely regarded as one of the industry’s leading delay experts, Meera has advised clients on some of the most complex, high-stakes construction disputes worldwide.

Congratulations to Meera, and all of the women recognized in The Consulting Report’s rankings.

By Gino Bello and Daniel Wang

Why Digital Investigations are Changing

Digital forensics and eDiscovery are undergoing a fundamental structural shift. What was once a reactive, downstream process — focused primarily on large-scale data collection and document review — has evolved into an analytics-driven, intelligence-driven capability.

In today’s disputes and investigations, outcomes are increasingly shaped by how early digital evidence is understood, contextualised, and explained. Advanced analytics, cloud forensics, and AI-assisted workflows now influence legal strategy, regulatory posture, and settlement dynamics from the outset of a matter.

This evolution places renewed emphasis on expert judgment, methodological transparency, and defensibility, particularly as courts and regulators apply heightened scrutiny to proportionality, AI usage, and collection decisions.

Insight First. Volume Second.

The historical eDiscovery paradigm rewarded scale: broader collections, more custodians, and exhaustive review. That model is no longer optimal, and in many cases, no longer defensible or even feasible.

The differentiator today is speed to insight. Advanced analytics are increasingly used to inform early case assessment, rapidly identify high-risk custodians and communication patterns. This allows scope to be constrained before costs escalate, and supports targeted injunctions, dawn-raid responses, and regulatory actions. Early, defensible insight enables counsel to act decisively — often before an opposing narrative crystallises.

Expert-Led. AI-Accelerated.

Artificial intelligence is now embedded across forensics and review workflows, from clustering and anomaly detection, to technology-assisted review and communication analysis.

Judicial and regulatory expectations remain clear: AI augments expertise — it does not replace it. Methodologies must be explainable, AI outputs validated, and expert judgment must remain central to interpretation.

The most effective teams deploy AI as an acceleration layer, enhancing human analysis while maintaining defensibility, proportionality, and clarity around assumptions and limitations.

Collaboration and Ephemeral Data as the New Evidentiary Core

Email is no longer the dominant evidentiary source. Matters increasingly turn on enterprise collaboration platforms, mobile and ephemeral messaging applications, and cloud-native documents with version histories, comments, and access logs.

These data sources are rich in context but technically complex to interpret. Understanding how information was created, shared, edited, and accessed, often across devices and geographies, is now as critical as the content itself.

Cloud Forensics Is Now Table Stakes

As organisations migrate to cloud-first environments, digital forensics has expanded beyond files and messages. Modern investigations increasingly focus on user activity, system behaviour, metadata, logs, and audit trails. In many cases, traditional preservation and analysis approaches no longer apply.

Cloud forensics demands not only technical capability, but a deep understanding of platform architecture and operational nuance, particularly when explaining findings for courts, regulators, and non-technical stakeholders.

Rising Judicial Scrutiny and Defensibility Expectations

Courts and regulators are raising the bar. There is heightened scrutiny around the proportionality of collection and review, validation of AI-assisted workflows, preservation decisions, and chain-of-custody integrity. Often, government bodies also impose additional constraints on how digital evidence must be handled and presented.

This places renewed emphasis on experts who can bridge technical complexity and legal relevance — clearly explaining what was done, why it was done, and the limits of what can be concluded.

From Data to Decisions, How We Can Help

In high-stakes disputes and investigations, outcomes are increasingly shaped by how early digital evidence is understood, contextualised, and explained, not by how much data is produced.

Secretariat’s globally integrated Digital Forensics & eDiscovery teams work alongside counsel from the earliest stages of a matter. By combining expert-led analysis, advanced analytics, and defensible methodologies, we help clients move from data to decisions — at pace and under scrutiny.

When the stakes are high, early insight is the advantage.

---

The London appointment expands the firm’s capabilities in product safety, crisis management, materials science, risk assessment, and high-stakes failure analysis.

Secretariat is pleased to welcome Farah Ahmed, PhD, a leading product safety and crisis management expert, to our growing Engineering Sciences team in London. Bringing nearly two decades of experience, Dr. Ahmed helps clients around the world navigate complex regulatory matters, strengthen product safety and compliance, and address high‑stakes failures, recalls, and corrective actions that demand swift, strategic responses.

Dr. Ahmed has specialized expertise in root-cause analysis, risk assessment, material selection and analysis, fracture mechanics, multi‑scale failure assessment, and destructive and non‑destructive evaluation. Her work spans a wide range of industries, including consumer products, medical devices, manufacturing, electronics, batteries, pharmaceuticals, automotive systems, mining, aerospace, retail and hospitality, sports, medical forensics, food and beverage, and national space agencies.

Across these spaces, Dr. Ahmed advises C-suite leaders, investors, engineers, product design teams, manufacturers, and regulators. When failures occur at any stage of the product lifecycle—resulting in recalls, corrective measures, or heightened regulatory scrutiny—Dr. Ahmed’s capabilities help clients understand what failed and why, determine an appropriate response, and identify strategies to strengthen compliance and mitigate future risk.

“Product safety and regulatory challenges are growing more complex every year, and clients come to Secretariat’s experts for clear, grounded answers. Farah has an exceptional blend of unparalleled industry knowledge and practical communication that clients really value,” says Don Harvey, Managing Director at Secretariat. “She brings incredibly innovative, robust perspectives that strengthen our work and amplify our impact. We’re thrilled to welcome her to the team.”

Dr. Ahmed is also recognized globally as a leading expert in X‑ray Computed Tomography, having completed her PhD under the mentorship of the technology’s inventor. She is the Founder and President of the Tomography for Scientific Advancement (ToScA) international society, where she regularly delivers keynotes, moderates sessions, and shapes program content that unites academic researchers, industrial practitioners, and instrumentation developers. She also holds leadership roles on national technical committees, including the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC) and the National Physical Laboratory (NPL).

Secretariat is proud to announce that Jimmy McCutcheon has been recognized in Consulting Magazine’s Rising Stars 2026 awards, earning recognition for excellence in Industry-Specialization.

The Rising Stars of the Profession awards recognize high-performing professionals aged 36 and under who are “shaking up the industry in impactful ways” and redefining the consulting profession through innovation, client impact, and leadership.

“We are delighted to see Jimmy recognized by Consulting Magazine,” said Eric Poer, leader of Secretariat’s Securities Practice. “I have experienced first-hand Jimmy’s deep industry expertise, commitment to client outcomes, and ability to translate complex challenges into practical solutions. This recognition reflects both his individual accomplishments and the strength of the team around him. We congratulate Jimmy on this well-deserved achievement.”

A Director in Secretariat’s Global Investigations & Disputes practice, Jimmy focuses on U.S. securities litigation and financial disputes. He is recognized for his ability to bridge litigation strategy and expert testimony, serving as a trusted advisor to counsel in high-stakes matters. He provides expert services, forensic accounting, and financial analysis in complex disputes and investigations, supporting matters involving due diligence, corporate governance, M&A, and banking, among others.

Congratulations to this year’s winners: 2026 Honorees: Consulting Rising Stars of the Profession 2026

---

Secretariat is pleased to sponsor the 2026 ACEDS Artificial Intelligence Survey, now in its second year. This annual survey examines how artificial intelligence (AI) is being used across modern legal workflows as the industry moves beyond experimentation and into full operational adoption.

How is AI being used across your workflows today? What challenges or opportunities have emerged as adoption has expanded? We invite you to share your experience with its use in legal practice. Join the conversation as we uncover practical, real-world insights.

As AI becomes embedded across legal workflows, accountability and defensibility have taken on new importance. The 2026 survey focuses on how legal teams are deploying AI in real-world environments, how those tools are governed, and where challenges continue to limit effectiveness. As AI-generated work product increasingly appears in high-stakes matters, accuracy, defensibility, transparency, and accountability have become critical priorities.

Key Trends Shaping AI in Legal Practice in 2026

This year’s survey explores several developments shaping AI adoption across the legal industry, including:

• AI is operational, not experimental.
  Legal teams are embedding AI into existing platforms and workflows, making governance, integration, and output quality more important than tool selection.
• Defensibility now outweighs speed.
  Accuracy, privilege protection, auditability, and transparency are driving decisions as AI-generated work product increasingly appears in high-stakes matters.
• Education gaps are more visible—and riskier.
  Uneven understanding of AI across attorneys, legal ops, and eDiscovery teams continues to impact adoption quality and risk exposure.
• eDiscovery expertise is expanding beyond review.
  AI is pushing eDiscovery professionals into broader roles across investigations, analytics, and information governance, when organizations allow it.
• Clients are asking harder questions about AI.
  Clients now expect clear answers on how AI is used, governed, disclosed, and validated, raising the bar for transparency and policy alignment.

Why Participate in the 2026 AI Survey

Your participation ensures the survey reflects real-world experience, not marketing claims or theoretical use cases. Whether your organization is actively deploying AI, cautiously evaluating its use, or developing internal policies and governance frameworks, your insights help establish a credible industry benchmark.

The survey takes only a few minutes to complete, and the findings will help inform legal decision-making, technology investment, and best practices across the global legal community.

Thank you for contributing to the 2026 ACEDS Artificial Intelligence Survey.

---

To read the Secretariat and ACEDS 2025 Artificial Intelligence Report, click here.

A Secretariat expert team, led by Dr. Richard Manning, provided key damages calculations and expert testimony in the precedent-setting Delaware Court of Chancery decision that secured an approximately $811 million award for Fortis Advisors, representative of Auris Health’s former stockholders, in a post-closing earnout dispute with Johnson & Johnson (J&J).

Selendy Gay retained Dr. Manning to serve as their damages expert in this high-stakes case, which centered on J&J’s alleged breach of its 2019 merger agreement to acquire Auris Health, Inc.—a deal that hinged on the development of Auris’ innovative robotic surgery technology. In his role as an expert witness for Fortis, Dr. Manning evaluated and put forth damages under several alternative legal theories.

Following a ten-day trial in September 2024, Vice Chancellor Lori W. Will of the Delaware Court of Chancery issued a decision that awarded more than $1 billion in damages for J&J’s breach of contract, breach of implied covenant, and fraud. The Court ruled that J&J had intentionally delayed achieving key milestones to avoid paying a significant earnout payment to Auris’ stockholders. Additionally, the Court found that J&J’s actions constituted fraud, particularly in undermining Auris’ progress on critical technologies essential to the deal.

The Court adopted Dr. Manning’s approach to damages in rendering its decision, noting they “can reasonably measure what Auris expected to gain using the probability-weighted milestone values assigned by the parties.”¹ Additionally, the Court determined the defense’s rebuttal expert’s points were not persuasive in critiquing Dr. Manning’s approach. The Chancery Court’s 2024 decision in full can be read here.

Following the Chancery Court’s decision, the case was brought before the Delaware Supreme Court on J&J’s appeal. On January 12, 2026, the Delaware Supreme Court issued an opinion that affirmed the judgment of the Chancery Court as to breach of contract and fraud, reversed as to the implied covenant, and remanded to the lower court for a recalculation of damages.² In their opinion, the Delaware Supreme Court affirmed the validity of Dr. Manning’s calculations, noting, “we also uphold the [Chancery Court’s] damages methodology.”³ The Delaware Supreme Court’s opinion can be read in full here.

On January 26, 2026, the Chancery Court delivered a final stipulated judgment of nearly $811 million in damages for J&J’s breach of contract and fraud, which constitutes the largest award in Delaware history in an earnout case.

“I am pleased to have been able to work with a talented team of colleagues at Secretariat on this complex and interesting matter,” notes Dr. Manning. “I am gratified that we were able to provide the economic analysis and testimony to help both the Delaware Chancery Court and the State Supreme court reach their determinations.”

The Secretariat team working on the engagement with Dr. Manning included Dr. Richard Brady, Dr. Kira Stearns, and Jacob Miller. Further details on the case were covered in a Selendy Gay news release.

1. Fortis Advisors LLC v. Johnson & Johnson, C.A. No. 2020‑0881‑LWW (Del. Ch. Sept. 4, 2024) ↩︎
2. Johnson & Johnson v. Fortis Advisors LLC, No. 490, 2024, 2026 WL 89452 (Del. Jan. 12, 2026) ↩︎
3. Johnson & Johnson v. Fortis Advisors LLC, p. 3 ↩︎