Mr. Chodorow has more than 25 years of experience in commercial damages, valuation, and tax matters.
He specializes in analyzing complex business and financial issues in the context of damages quantification, asset valuation, and evaluating the substance of transactions. His work has covered a wide variety of industries, and he has specialized expertise in the energy and natural resources sectors. Who’s Who Legal’s guides have identified Mr. Chodorow as a leading expert witness in Arbitration, Litigation, Financial Advisory: Quantum of Damages, and Construction: Quantum & Delay.
Commercial Damages: Mr. Chodorow advises clients on damages in investor-state arbitration, commercial arbitration, and litigation. He has served as a damages expert in disputes involving investment treaties, commercial contracts, M&A transactions, intellectual property, insurance claims, and antitrust disputes. He has served as an expert in cases before US federal and state courts; the District Court of Cyprus; and arbitrations before AAA, BCCC, ICC, ICDR, ICSID, LCIA, PCA, and ad hoc tribunals.
Business and Asset Valuation: Mr. Chodorow has valued businesses, financial instruments, and tangible and intangible assets. He has valuation experience in multimillion- and multibillion-dollar matters in a variety of sectors, including agricultural products, cement, chemicals, financial products, gaming, mining, oil and gas, and electricity.
Tax Disputes: Mr. Chodorow has advised the Internal Revenue Service, the US Department of Justice, and taxpayers on matters related to economic substance, business purpose, research tax credits, transfer pricing, hedging, and asset valuation. He has been engaged as an expert for disputes in US Tax Court and federal court.
The Claimants were seeking to build a basalt quarry and marine terminal in Nova Scotia, and brought a NAFTA arbitration claim after federal and provincial governments denied the project its permits. The Tribunal found that the permit review process was in breach of NAFTA’s national treatment standards in the liability phase. During the damages phase, the Claimants requested an award of $443 million. Retained by Canada to evaluate the reasonableness of this claim, Mr. Chodorow explained that, given the particular circumstances of this project, the Claimants’ request was excessive and inconsistent with past transactions of ownership interests in the project, and that past investment in the project was limited. The Tribunal concluded that, based on the prior transactions and past investment in the project, the value of the opportunity lost by the Claimants due to Canada’s breach was $7 million.
The City of Los Angeles (LA) owned and operated the Ontario International Airport. The City of Ontario filed suit claiming that LA breached its obligation to exercise best efforts to attract air service to Ontario’s airport, instead favoring its own Los Angeles International Airport (LAX). Ontario claimed that the breach caused damages of $2-3 billion. Retained on behalf of the City of LA to evaluate the reasonableness of these claims, Mr. Chodorow concluded that, if LA did breach its obligations, Ontario’s actual losses were a small fraction of those claimed and that the vast majority of losses suffered by Ontario were caused by the 2008 Financial Crisis, not the alleged breach. The case settled just before trial with Ontario paying $190 million to acquire the airport, but with no payment by LA for the claimed damages. The dispute was widely covered in the press, including the New York Times and Los Angeles Times.
A third party entered into a €5.8 million loan for which the Petitioners assumed joint and several liability. As a result of entering into this transaction structure, known as CARDS, the Petitioners claimed a tax loss of $4.3 million. The U.S. Internal Revenue Service challenged the transaction on the basis that the transaction lacked economic substance and that the loss claimed was artificial. Mr. Chodorow was retained by the Internal Revenue Service to evaluate the impact of the transaction on the Petitioners’ economic position, and to assess the claimed business rationale for entering into the transaction. He concluded that the transaction was not economically rational absent the claimed tax benefits. The U.S. Tax Court found that the transaction lacked economic substance and that the claimed business purpose was not credible, noting in its opinion that “we find Mr. Chodorow’s report and related testimony persuasive.” The claimed tax loss arising from the transaction was therefore disallowed.
Kayat, a Cypriot company, alleged that Genzyme breached an exclusive distribution agreement for the Former Soviet Union, resulting in damages in excess of $300 million. To support its claim, Kayat presented expert testimony on sales but for the alleged breach, and damages. On behalf of Genzyme, Mr. Chodorow provided expert testimony explaining key flaws in the methodology and implementation of the analyses conducted by the plaintiff’s experts that made their conclusions unreliable and overstated. The court agreed with these conclusions. The ruling found that Genzyme had breached the distribution agreement, but awarded Kayat only $7.6 million in damages.
International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes, Case No. ARB/13/18 (Enel Green Power S.p.A. (“Enel”) v. Republic of El Salvador). Expert report assessing the contingent value of Enel’s ownership stake in LaGeo S.A. de C.V. (“LaGeo”), a geothermal development and operating company with a portfolio of assets in El Salvador, associated with Enel’s rights under a shareholder agreement with the government of El Salvador.
December 5, 2014
Perfetti Van Melle USA and Perfetti Van Melle Benelux v. Cadbury Adams USA LLC, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky, Civil Action No. 2:10-CV-35-DLB. Expert Declaration and Testimony
SCS Interactive, Inc. and Whitewater West Industries Ltd v. Vortex Aquatic Structures International Inc., U.S. District Court of Colorado, Civil Action No. 09-cv-01732-REB-KLM. Expert Report
Kayat Trading Ltd. v. Genzyme Corporation, Cyprus District Court, Nicosia District. Expert Report and Testimony
ErinMedia, LLC v. Nielsen Media Research, Inc., U.S. District Court, Middle District of Florida. Civil Action No. 8:05-CV-1123-T24-EAJ. Expert Report and Deposition Testimony
Embrex, Inc. v. Avitech, L.L.C. U.S. District Court, Middle District of North Carolina. Civil Action No. 1:04CV00693. Expert Report
The Northern Cheyenne Tribe v. Gale A Norton, Secretary of the Interior and Fidelity Exploration and Production Company, U.S. District Court, District of Montana, Billings, Civil Action No. CV-03-00078-RWA. Expert Declaration
Agrizap, Inc. v. Woodstream Corp., et al., U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania. Civil Action No. 04-3925. Expert Report
Robert Rockwood and Roxanna Marchosky v. SKF USA, Inc. U.S. District Court for the District of New Hampshire, Civil Action No. 1:08-CV-00168. Expert Report
Norfolk Southern Railway Company v. Drummond Coal Sales, Inc., U.S. District Court, Western District of Virginia. Civil Action No. 7:08CV00340. Expert Report
Laboratorios Haymann S.A. v. Ivax Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., International Chamber of Commerce International Court of Arbitration, Case No. ICC 18589/CA. Expert Report
Petroplast Petrofisa Plasticos S.A. and Petrofisa Do Brazil, Ltda v. Ameron International Corp., Delaware Court of Chancery, Civil Action No. 4304-VCP. Expert Report, Deposition Testimony, and Testimony
Coverings Space NJ, Inc. v. Adele, et al., Superior Court of New Jersey. Civil Action HUD-L-3730-06. Expert Report and Deposition Testimony
Confidential tax mediation. Expert Report and Presentation to IRS Appeals Panel
Confidential mutual fund industry arbitration. Expert Report, Deposition Testimony, and Testimony
Darrell lives in Maryland with his wife and two boys. As a native New Mexican, he enjoys anything having to do with the mountains and the outdoors. Whenever possible, he can be found on his bike.