New Jersey Appellate Court Affirms Valuation of Shopping Mall, Disallows Any Control or Marketability Discounts, Affirms Proper Dissociation by Plaintiffs

BVLaw
Court Case Digests
May 19, 2022
6512 Operators of Nonresidential Buildings
531120 Lessors of Nonresidential Buildings (except Miniwarehouses)
shareholder dissent/oppression
discount for lack of control (DLOC), fair value, appraisal, buyout, discount, discount for lack of marketability (DLOM), partnership interest, partnership dispute, management fees

Robertson v. Hyde Park
2022 N.J. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 848
United States
State Court
New Jersey
Superior Court
Michael J. Bernholz; Gerald M. Carey; Henry Fuentes, CPA/ABV, CFE
Rothstadt and Natali

Summary

This case was a partnership dispute where the defendant partners tried to buy out the plaintiff partners. On appeal before the New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division, the defendants argued that the plaintiffs’ dissociation was wrongful and damages should be assessed, discounts for lack of control and marketability should be applied to the value, and the partnership value should be reduced to account for partnership outstanding debts and other amounts. The plaintiffs argued that the trial court erred by relying on the defendants’ expert’s report and not their expert’s report, refusing to increase the value by personal loans taken by the defendant partners, and failing to find that the partnership overpaid management and accounting fees. The appellate court affirmed the trial court with one exception, whether the partnership agreement disassociated properly. On that count, the appellate court determined that the disassociation was appropriate.

See Also

Robertson v. Hyde Park

This case was a partnership dispute where the defendant partners tried to buy out the plaintiff partners. On appeal before the New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division, the defendants argued that the plaintiffs’ dissociation was wrongful and damages should be assessed, discounts for lack of control and marketability should be applied to the value, and the partnership value should be reduced to account for partnership outstanding debts and other amounts. The plaintiffs argued that the trial court erred by relying on the defendants’ expert’s report and not their expert’s report, refusing to increase the value by personal loans taken by the defendant partners, and failing to find that the partnership overpaid management and accounting fees. The appellate court affirmed the trial court with one exception, whether the partnership agreement disassociated properly. On that count, the appellate court determined that the disassociation was appropriate.