This is simply not the stage to determine the persuasiveness of an
expert opinion or the weight that a court may accord that testimony. Under the
"trier of fact" function, a court must consider all admitted evidence, weigh its
credibility and probative force, and make a determination as to the factual supportfor a particular valuation testimony. Here it is not a court's role to "complete" an
uncompleted expert report, to "search and select" through various reports to
construct a meta-report that often has no support in the record; to infuse more facts
into the expert report and then make adjustments without corresponding expert
testimony to support such adjustments; or to synthesize the competing reports
assigning, for example, sixty percent of the weight of the valuation to the debtor'sexpert and forty percent to other experts. Rather, if a court finds expert testimony
deficient, it may exclude the report and testimony in its entirety, it may appoint its
own expert or technical advisor, or it may send the experts back to consider new
facts or techniques. Nothing more, or less, is required of our courts in order to
square expert valuation testimony with their institutional duty under Daubert.
'Courts of bankruptcy are essentially courts of equity, and their proceedings inherently are proceedings in equity.'
