This appeal in a California court involved a dispute over an appraisal of the plaintiffs’ 15% interest in a grocery store the defendant operated. The plaintiffs alleged that the award of the superior court was obtained by fraud and that the arbitrator prejudiced their rights.
View Case Digest View Case
U.S. District Court Denies Motions to Exclude Experts but Grants Motions to Exclude Lay Witnesses ‘Expert’ Testimony
The U.S. District Court (Michigan) denied motions to exclude the plaintiff’s and the defendant’s expert witnesses and granted motions from both parties to exclude “expert” testimony from lay witnesses. The case involved alleged breach of contract on the part of the defendants regarding raiding of the plaintiff’s employees, and damages related thereto.
Bostick v. Bostick
The South Carolina Court of Appeals, in this divorce case, reversed the family court and included all goodwill of a dentistry practice as enterprise goodwill includable in the marital estate. The family court had included all of the goodwill as personal goodwill not part of the marital estate. The Court of Appeals also reduced the temporary monthly alimony.
Appellate Court Reversed Decision and Treated All Goodwill as Enterprise Goodwill Includable in the Marital Estate
The South Carolina Court of Appeals, in this divorce case, reversed the family court and included all goodwill of a dentistry practice as enterprise goodwill includable in the marital estate. The family court had included all of the goodwill as personal goodwill not part of the marital estate. The Court of Appeals also reduced the temporary monthly alimony.
In Re Cellular Tel. P’ship Litig.
In this coordinated action involving 13 partnerships that were involved in freeze-out transactions by AT&T of minority shareholders, AT&T breached its fiduciary duties and effectuated the freeze-out through an unfair process and by paying an unfair price. The freeze-out was subject to the entire fairness standard of review. AT&T bore the burden of proving that the freeze-out was entirely fair to the minority partners. AT&T failed in that proof and thereby sought to capture future value for itself. AT&T did not employ any procedures that insured fairness to the minority partners. The lead partner of the valuation firm had a long-standing relationship with AT&T, and internal AT&T personnel influenced the outcome of the valuation. The court determined the fair value of the interest as a remedy to the situation.
Delaware Chancery Court Rejects Partnership Valuation in a Freeze-Out as Unfair to Minority Partners
In this coordinated action involving 13 partnerships that were involved in freeze-out transactions by AT&T of minority shareholders, AT&T breached its fiduciary duties and effectuated the freeze-out through an unfair process and by paying an unfair price. The freeze-out was subject to the entire fairness standard of review. AT&T bore the burden of proving that the freeze-out was entirely fair to the minority partners. AT&T failed in that proof and thereby sought to capture future value for itself. AT&T did not employ any procedures that insured fairness to the minority partners. The lead partner of the valuation firm had a long-standing relationship with AT&T, and internal AT&T personnel influenced the outcome of the valuation. The court determined the fair value of the interest as a remedy to the situation.
Hester v. Hester
In this Virginia divorce case, the court, among other things, did not accept the valuation of either valuator and instead determined its own value crafted from the two valuations that were submitted. The result, by chance or otherwise, resulted in “splitting the baby.”
Divorce Matter Results in the Court ‘Splitting the Baby’ to Value a 20% Interest in an S Corp. Medical Practice
In this Virginia divorce case, the court, among other things, did not accept the valuation of either valuator and instead determined its own value crafted from the two valuations that were submitted. The result, by chance or otherwise, resulted in “splitting the baby.”
Erickson v. Erickson
The Court of Appeals of Utah in this divorce case affirmed the trial court’s decisions regarding the value of the wife’s business and the exclusion of the wife’s rebuttal witness. The primary issue on appeal was whether the business value included personal goodwill and whether personal goodwill was an appropriate issue in Utah for this business, veterinary pharmaceuticals. The court also affirmed the trial court’s exclusion of the wife’s rebuttal expert.
Appellate Court of Utah Affirms Judgment of Business Value Despite Assertions the Value Included Personal Goodwill
The Court of Appeals of Utah in this divorce case affirmed the trial court’s decisions regarding the value of the wife’s business and the exclusion of the wife’s rebuttal witness. The primary issue on appeal was whether the business value included personal goodwill and whether personal goodwill was an appropriate issue in Utah for this business, veterinary pharmaceuticals. The court also affirmed the trial court’s exclusion of the wife’s rebuttal expert.
Buckley v. Carlock
The Tennessee appellate court affirmed the Chancery Court’s determination of the value of an oppressed minority shareholder’s interest in an “ultra-high-end” car dealership. The valuation of an expert utilized the “blue sky method,” a rule of thumb method, to value the dealership and ultimately the minority interest. The Chancery Court conducted a hearing on which it heard valuation expert testimony. The appellate court affirmed the Chancery Court’s valuation and its methodology since it was generally accepted by the financial community.
Appellate Court Affirms Use of the ‘Blue Sky Method,’ a Rule of Thumb, to Value a Minority Interest in an Oppression Case
The Tennessee appellate court affirmed the Chancery Court’s determination of the value of an oppressed minority shareholder’s interest in an “ultra-high-end” car dealership. The valuation of an expert utilized the “blue sky method,” a rule of thumb method, to value the dealership and ultimately the minority interest. The Chancery Court conducted a hearing on which it heard valuation expert testimony. The appellate court affirmed the Chancery Court’s valuation and its methodology since it was generally accepted by the financial community.
In re Marriage of Brown
In this Illinois divorce case, the appellate court affirmed the circuit court’s determination of value of the husband’s business by the husband’s expert even though evidence was presented that the expert did not follow the AICPA Business Valuation Standards. Further, the husband’s expert did not consider any enterprise goodwill and used an unorthodox method to determine the value of the business. The wife’s expert asserted that the husband’s expert did not provide a fair market value but rather did a “calculation.” The appellate court also affirmed the circuit court’s decision not to exclude the testimony of the husband’s expert witness.
Illinois Appellate Court Does Not Accept Valuation Including Enterprise Goodwill
In this Illinois divorce case, the appellate court affirmed the circuit court’s determination of value of the husband’s business by the husband’s expert even though evidence was presented that the expert did not follow the AICPA Business Valuation Standards. Further, the husband’s expert did not consider any enterprise goodwill and used an unorthodox method to determine the value of the business. The wife’s expert asserted that the husband’s expert did not provide a fair market value but rather did a “calculation.” The appellate court also affirmed the circuit court’s decision not to exclude the testimony of the husband’s expert witness.
Cain v. Cain
The Nebraska District Court in this case accepted the value of the wife’s expert testimony at trial as to the value of the husband’s 50% interest in his business. Both appraisers included DLOMs in determining value, and both appraisers utilized appropriate valuation methodologies. The difference in the two valuations is a matter of the difference in professional judgment.
The Nebraska District Court’s Determination of the Value of a Husband’s Business Is Affirmed—Appraisers Used Acceptable Valuation Methodology
The Nebraska District Court in this case accepted the value of the wife’s expert testimony at trial as to the value of the husband’s 50% interest in his business. Both appraisers included DLOMs in determining value, and both appraisers utilized appropriate valuation methodologies. The difference in the two valuations is a matter of the difference in professional judgment.
Adewopo v. Jaja
In this divorce matter, the Indiana appellate court included enterprise goodwill of the wife’s business in the marital estate. The court-appointed, at the husband’s request, expert testified as to his conclusion of value using an income approach and calculating the amount of enterprise goodwill while excluding personal goodwill. The wife objected to the expert’s value but provided no evidence of her own determination of value.
Indiana Appellate Court Includes Enterprise Goodwill of Wife’s Businesses in Marital Estate
In this divorce matter, the Indiana appellate court included enterprise goodwill of the wife’s business in the marital estate. The court-appointed, at the husband’s request, expert testified as to his conclusion of value using an income approach and calculating the amount of enterprise goodwill while excluding personal goodwill. The wife objected to the expert’s value but provided no evidence of her own determination of value.
Bougie v. Garth-Niggeman
The case originated at trial court on issues of the buyout of a deceased member’s interest in an LLC restaurant. Among the issues was the use of the LLC’s recipes by the acquirer of the deceased’s interest in violation of the operating agreement. The two remaining LLC members claimed the use of the LLC’s recipes in other restaurants irreparably harmed them. However, the remaining members did not seek, nor did they prove, any damages resulting from the use of the recipes. The appellate court affirmed the trial court’s denial of a permanent injunction against the use of the recipes.
Trial Court’s Denial of Permanent Injunctive Relief for Irreparable Harm Is Upheld
The case originated at trial court on issues of the buyout of a deceased member’s interest in an LLC restaurant. Among the issues was the use of the LLC’s recipes by the acquirer of the deceased’s interest in violation of the operating agreement. The two remaining LLC members claimed the use of the LLC’s recipes in other restaurants irreparably harmed them. However, the remaining members did not seek, nor did they prove, any damages resulting from the use of the recipes. The appellate court affirmed the trial court’s denial of a permanent injunction against the use of the recipes.
Bohac v. Benes Serv. Co.
The Nebraska District Court in this case applied discounts to its determination of fair value (FV). The Supreme Court found that the district court did not use the correct definition of fair value, resulting in discounts being applied to the estate’s shares. The Supreme Court also found that the proper premise of value was going concern and the proper methodology for value was the asset approach. The Supreme Court also allowed as a liability the deferred tax on potential future sale of assets by the corporation.
The Nebraska District Court Is Reversed in Its Determination of Fair Value
The Nebraska District Court in this case applied discounts to its determination of fair value (FV). The Supreme Court found that the district court did not use the correct definition of fair value, resulting in discounts being applied to the estate’s shares. The Supreme Court also found that the proper premise of value was going concern and the proper methodology for value was the asset approach. The Supreme Court also allowed as a liability the deferred tax on potential future sale of assets by the corporation.
Quattro Parent LLC v. Rakib
In this surmised summary judgment as to damages a New York trial court awarded damages to the plaintiff in a breach of contract suit. The determination of damages was made without a trial but “on paper.” Additionally, the court used a subsequent sale of the stock to determine the damages and opine that the company was “worthless.”
New York Trial Court Determines Damages Without a Trial and Uses Subsequent Transaction to Determine the Amount
In this surmised summary judgment as to damages a New York trial court awarded damages to the plaintiff in a breach of contract suit. The determination of damages was made without a trial but “on paper.” Additionally, the court used a subsequent sale of the stock to determine the damages and opine that the company was “worthless.”
In re Platinum Corral, LLC
The Bankruptcy Court turned down a plan and amended plan of reorganization primarily because only the debtor would benefit from the plan and creditors would be left with little or no return. The court ordered a new plan be delivered to the court as soon as possible because time was of the essence.
Plan of Reorganization Cannot Be Approved Because Essentially Only the Debtor Would Benefit
The Bankruptcy Court turned down a plan and amended plan of reorganization primarily because only the debtor would benefit from the plan and creditors would be left with little or no return. The court ordered a new plan be delivered to the court as soon as possible because time was of the essence.