The economically sound evaluation of large data sets forms the methodological starting point for our assessments. Only on this empirically sound basis can the actual economic analysis be based, in which hypotheses are formulated, market mechanisms are modelled and the data obtained is translated into verifiable economic arguments.
EE&MC prepares economic expert reports and counter-reports for national and international proceedings, arbitration proceedings and administrative proceedings on the basis of a robust and transparently documented data foundation. The expert reports combine empirical evidence with theoretical rigour and are designed to communicate complex economic issues in a simple, understandable, precise and legally sound manner.
These reports comply with the methodological and content requirements formulated, for example, by the German Federal Court of Justice (BGH) for the admissibility of economic evidence in national proceedings. According to these requirements, an economic report must be based on comprehensible, transparently documented and empirically verifiable data. It must present the relevant economic relationships in a manner that is both scientifically sound and comprehensible to the court and the parties. The methodological approach must be disclosed, the empirical data must be properly prepared, and the conclusions must be logically derived from economic theory and empirical findings.
In addition, EE&MC bases its expert opinions on the requirements formulated by the Federal Cartel Office in its announcement on standards for economic expert opinions dated 20 October 2010 (available (in German only) at www.bundeskartellamt.de). These require that economic expert opinions (i) establish a clear link to the antitrust issue, (ii) are fully comprehensible and replicable (i.e. including all raw data), (iii) disclose their assumptions and methods transparently, (iv) maintain internal consistency and congruence of the analyses, (v) contain a generally understandable non-technical summary, and (vi) be based on established economic theories and empirical methods.
In addition to the standards of the Federal Court of Justice and the Federal Cartel Office, EE&MC bases the preparation and documentation of its expert reports on the European Commission's (DG COMP) ‘Best Practices for the Submission of Economic Evidence and Data Collection’ of 17 October 2011 (available at LexUriServ.do).
Our work is guided in particular by (i) precise formulation of the economic questions relevant to the examination and the testable hypotheses, (ii) data relevance and reliability, including complete replicability (data, code, adjustment steps), (iii) methodologically appropriate identification and transparent justification of the econometric specification, (iv) clear reporting and economic classification of the results, taking into account statistical and economic significance, and (v) systematic robustness and sensitivity analyses.
EE&MC bases its expert reports on the standards outlined above, paying particular attention to the requirements for use in court and by authorities. We follow the standards recognised in academia and practice for technical quality, transparency and verifiability, including replication possibilities.
In addition, EE&MC experts work closely with the lawyers conducting the proceedings when preparing expert reports. The economic argumentation is developed by the team in such a way that it corresponds to the evidentiary objectives specified by the litigation strategy without losing its scientific independence. This creates a coherent link between economic analysis and legal argumentation that meets the judicial requirements of relevance, comprehensibility and substantiation. It is precisely this interdisciplinary approach that distinguishes the work of EE&MC. Both leading EE&MC partners are economists and lawyers.
In the case of counter-expert opinions (known as rebuttals), the focus is on the critical analysis of the assumptions, data usage and conclusions of other economic experts. EE&MC evaluates the methodological consistency, robustness and empirical validity of external expert opinions. Potentially flawed specifications, multicollinear estimation approaches or inadmissible causal interpretations are identified and explained in economic terms.