Brundle v. Wilmington Trust N.A. (I)

BVLaw
Full Text of Court Cases
March 13, 2017

Access the Full Article

This article and its downloads are available with a subscription to any of these products:
It is also available in this product:
Already a subscriber or product owner?  Login
This article is also available for purchase. (21,361 words)   Add to Cart >>
Need help? Contact us:
1-503-479-8200 ext 2 or sales@bvresources.com
7381 Detective, Guard, and Armored Car Services
561612 Security Guards and Patrol Services
ESOP valuations
damages, control premium, discount rate, expert testimony, discounted cash flow (DCF), fair market value (FMV), multiple, projections, guideline company method, enterprise value (MVIC), employee stock ownership plan (ESOP), adequate consideration, erisa, company specific risk, fiduciary duty
Brundle v. Wilmington Trust N.A. (I)
241 F. Supp. 3d 610 (E.D. Va. 2017), 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 35811
US
Federal Court
Virginia
United States District Court
Stout Risius Ross (ESOP valuation); Dana Messina (plaintiff); Jeff Tarbell (defendant/trustee)
Brinkema

Summary

Court finds ESOP trustee liable for allowing overpayment for company shares; trustee rushed transaction and failed to scrutinize financial advisor’s valuation ignoring red flags related to projections, use of control premium, beta, rounding up of values.
Brundle v. Wilmington Trust N.A.
PDF, Size: 4,081 KB

See Also

Trustee Liable for Inadequate ESOP Valuation Vetting

Court Case Digests
March 13, 2017

Court finds ESOP trustee liable for allowing overpayment for company shares; trustee rushed transaction and failed to scrutinize financial advisor’s valuation ignoring red flags related to projections, use of control premium, beta, rounding up of values.

This article also appears in:
BVR Guide to Management Projections and Business Valuation: Analysis and Case Law