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
Asare v. Asare
In this marital dissolution appellate case, the appellate court must resolve a number of issues related to the equitable distribution of the marital estate. On most issues, the appellate court affirmed the trial court. However, the appellate court reversed the trial court on the issue of how much passive appreciation related to an investment account was includable in the marital estate.
North Carolina Appellate Court Reverses Trial Court on Amount of Passive Appreciation in an Investment Account
In this marital dissolution appellate case, the appellate court must resolve a number of issues related to the equitable distribution of the marital estate. On most issues, the appellate court affirmed the trial court. However, the appellate court reversed the trial court on the issue of how much passive appreciation related to an investment account was includable in the marital estate.
In re Multiplan Corp. Stockholders Litig.
This case dealt with a motion to dismiss the claims of the plaintiffs (by the defendants) in a stockholder suit against a special purpose acquisition company (SPAC). The claims were primarily that the plaintiffs’ claims were derivative, which failed to plead demand futility and that the business judgment rule applied. Many of the parties’ arguments centered around unique characteristics of a SPAC. In concluding that the entire fairness standard of review applied, the Delaware Chancery Court noted that “the fact that a reasonably conceivable impairment of public stockholders’ redemption rights—in the form of materially misleading disclosures—has been pleaded in this case.” The case was to go forward against all but two defendants.
Delaware Chancery Court Allows Breach of Fiduciary Suit to Move Forward on a SPAC
This case dealt with a motion to dismiss the claims of the plaintiffs (by the defendants) in a stockholder suit against a special purpose acquisition company (SPAC). The claims were primarily that the plaintiffs’ claims were derivative, which failed to plead demand futility and that the business judgment rule applied. Many of the parties’ arguments centered around unique characteristics of a SPAC. In concluding that the entire fairness standard of review applied, the Delaware Chancery Court noted that “the fact that a reasonably conceivable impairment of public stockholders’ redemption rights—in the form of materially misleading disclosures—has been pleaded in this case.” The case was to go forward against all but two defendants.
ShopRite, Inc. v. Gardiner
In determining the fair value of a minority interest in stock sold back to the companies in a shareholder oppression assertion, the Louisiana Court of Appeals rejected a discount for trapped-in capital gains tax since the companies had no intention of selling the properties owned. The appeals court also disallowed a reduction in fair value related to the value of affiliated accounts receivable, noting that there was no evidence that the receivables were uncollectible.
Louisiana Court of Appeals Disallows a Discount for Trapped-In Capital Gains Taxes and a Reduction in Receivables for Collectability
In determining the fair value of a minority interest in stock sold back to the companies in a shareholder oppression assertion, the Louisiana Court of Appeals rejected a discount for trapped-in capital gains tax since the companies had no intention of selling the properties owned. The appeals court also disallowed a reduction in fair value related to the value of affiliated accounts receivable, noting that there was no evidence that the receivables were uncollectible.
In a Primarily Procedural Ruling, the Michigan Court of Appeals Affirms a Damages Award Including Goodwill
In this primarily procedural ruling, the Michigan Court of Appeals affirmed judgment from a lower court awarding damages, including goodwill, for breach of contract arising from a sale of a medical practice, including goodwill. The plaintiffs claimed that the defendants’ failure to comply with the transfer assistant clauses in the sale contract destroyed the practice goodwill, among other things.
Sherman v. Sherrod
In this primarily procedural ruling, the Michigan Court of Appeals affirmed judgment from a lower court awarding damages, including goodwill, for breach of contract arising from a sale of a medical practice, including goodwill. The plaintiffs claimed that the defendants’ failure to comply with the transfer assistant clauses in the sale contract destroyed the practice goodwill, among other things.
Xodus Med. v. Prime Med. (II)
This was a patent infringement case related to technology “related to patient slippage within the context of the Trendelenburg position for surgery—when using a viscoelastic foam.” Ivan T. Hoffmann was the plaintiffs’ damages expert. The defendants sought to exclude Hoffmann’s testimony on lost profits and his opinion of the reasonable royalty. Lost profits should be excluded because “he fails to tie consumer demand for products to the patented features of those products,” and he “does not establish … that, but for the alleged infringement, Plaintiffs would have made each and every sale made by Defendants.” Hoffman’s reasonable royalty analysis should be excluded because Hofmann’s royalty rate calculation of $20.00 represents a 141.8% increase to his $8.27 per unit “starting point,” and he provided no explanation for this substantial increase. The plaintiffs argued that the defendants’ quibbles with Hoffman’s opinion was the stuff of cross-examination but not exclusion. The defendants’ motion was denied.
Court Denies Defendants’ Motion to Exclude Expert Testimony—The Subject of the Testimony Is the Subject of Cross-Examination but Not Exclusion
This was a patent infringement case related to technology “related to patient slippage within the context of the Trendelenburg position for surgery—when using a viscoelastic foam.” Ivan T. Hoffmann was the plaintiffs’ damages expert. The defendants sought to exclude Hoffmann’s testimony on lost profits and his opinion of the reasonable royalty. Lost profits should be excluded because “he fails to tie consumer demand for products to the patented features of those products,” and he “does not establish … that, but for the alleged infringement, Plaintiffs would have made each and every sale made by Defendants.” Hoffman’s reasonable royalty analysis should be excluded because Hofmann’s royalty rate calculation of $20.00 represents a 141.8% increase to his $8.27 per unit “starting point,” and he provided no explanation for this substantial increase. The plaintiffs argued that the defendants’ quibbles with Hoffman’s opinion was the stuff of cross-examination but not exclusion. The defendants’ motion was denied.
Harvey v. Harvey (In re Michael S.)
In this divorce case, on appeal, the California appellate court rejected a discount for taxes not immediate and specific and allowed a DLOM regarding the value of the wife’s one-half interest in the jointly owned business. The court also determined that “the [trial] court impliedly made the factual findings necessary to support its ruling regarding Cynthia’s breach of fiduciary duty claim.” Finally, the appeals court determined that the trial court had the authority to set its own terms for payment of the equalization amount to the wife.
In a Divorce Case, the California Court of Appeal Rejects Discount for Taxes Not Immediate and Specific But Allows a DLOM
In this divorce case, on appeal, the California appellate court rejected a discount for taxes not immediate and specific and allowed a DLOM regarding the value of the wife’s one-half interest in the jointly owned business. The court also determined that “the [trial] court impliedly made the factual findings necessary to support its ruling regarding Cynthia’s breach of fiduciary duty claim.” Finally, the appeals court determined that the trial court had the authority to set its own terms for payment of the equalization amount to the wife.
Xodus Med. v. Prime Med. (I)
This was a patent infringement case related to technology "related to patient slippage within the context of the Trendelenburg position for surgery—when using a viscoelastic foam." Justin Blok was the defendants’ damages expert. The plaintiffs sought to exclude Blok’s testimony on the reasonable royalty because they contended he used unreliable and irrelevant documents to support his opinion. The defendants argued, and the court agreed, that Blok’s opinions go to the weight and not to the admissibility of his opinions.
Court Denies Plaintiffs’ Motion to Exclude Expert Testimony—The Subject of the Testimony Goes to the Weight and Not the Admissibility
This was a patent infringement case related to technology "related to patient slippage within the context of the Trendelenburg position for surgery—when using a viscoelastic foam." Justin Blok was the defendants’ damages expert. The plaintiffs sought to exclude Blok’s testimony on the reasonable royalty because they contended he used unreliable and irrelevant documents to support his opinion. The defendants argued, and the court agreed, that Blok’s opinions go to the weight and not to the admissibility of his opinions.
Walsh v. Vinoskey
This case covered the appellate decisions regarding the well-publicized Vinoskey ESOP case. The appellate court affirmed the district court in deciding that the company owner had extensive knowledge about the company and its prior valuations, and thus it was plausible to infer that “something was off.” There was no clear error in the district court finding that the owner violated ERISA. The appellate court also allowed an offset to damages for the debt the owner forgave.
Court Affirms Violation of ERISA but Allows Offset of Debt Forgiveness in Determining Damages
This case covered the appellate decisions regarding the well-publicized Vinoskey ESOP case. The appellate court affirmed the district court in deciding that the company owner had extensive knowledge about the company and its prior valuations, and thus it was plausible to infer that “something was off.” There was no clear error in the district court finding that the owner violated ERISA. The appellate court also allowed an offset to damages for the debt the owner forgave.
Guttman v. Guttman
The one-third partner of a real estate partnership, Bruce Guttman (Bruce), sued for dissolution. The two majority partners initiated a statutory procedure to buy out Bruce. All three appraisals were very close to $38 million. Feeling the valuations to be too low, Bruce sought to withdraw his complaint without prejudice. The trial court, on a motion from the majority partners, vacated Bruce’s dismissal. The appellate court affirmed the trial court.
One-Third Partner Sued to Have Partnership Dissolved, Asked to Vacate His Dissolution Assertion
The one-third partner of a real estate partnership, Bruce Guttman (Bruce), sued for dissolution. The two majority partners initiated a statutory procedure to buy out Bruce. All three appraisals were very close to $38 million. Feeling the valuations to be too low, Bruce sought to withdraw his complaint without prejudice. The trial court, on a motion from the majority partners, vacated Bruce’s dismissal. The appellate court affirmed the trial court.
Court Affirms Exclusion of Testimony From Witness as Being Based on Inadmissible Hearsay Evidence
The plaintiffs contended that the trial court erred in granting two defendants motions in limine to exclude evidence of the plaintiffs’ damages. The appellate court affirmed the decisions of the trial court.
HMH Enters. v. TAG Enters.
The plaintiffs contended that the trial court erred in granting two defendants motions in limine to exclude evidence of the plaintiffs’ damages. The appellate court affirmed the decisions of the trial court.
Collins v. Tabs Motors of Valley Stream Corp.
In this New York business divorce case, the court held that the shareholders agreement was enforceable, as well as the stipulated value of the buyout price as determined in Schedule B of the shareholders agreement. Claims by petitioners of breach of fiduciary duty and related claims, including a years-old certificate of value, were not sufficient to overcome the unambiguous terms of the buy-sell agreement.
In a New York Business Divorce, a Petition for Dissolution Triggers Buy-Sell Agreements
In this New York business divorce case, the court held that the shareholders agreement was enforceable, as well as the stipulated value of the buyout price as determined in Schedule B of the shareholders agreement. Claims by petitioners of breach of fiduciary duty and related claims, including a years-old certificate of value, were not sufficient to overcome the unambiguous terms of the buy-sell agreement.
Appeals Court Decides Trial Court Abused Its Discretion in Choosing the Method of Determining Damages
In this case alleging damages to a soybean crop, a Louisiana court of appeals determined that the trial court abused its discretion when it chose an expert's methodology for calculating damages, as another methodology was supported by the record and was not overly speculative; a reduced damage award was appropriate. The trial court affirmed two other issues regarding evidence of cause of damages and the issue of standing as to who owned the land and thus the crops.
Dettenhaim Farms, Inc. v. Greenpoint Ag, LLC
In this case alleging damages to a soybean crop, a Louisiana court of appeals determined that the trial court abused its discretion when it chose an expert's methodology for calculating damages, as another methodology was supported by the record and was not overly speculative; a reduced damage award was appropriate. The trial court affirmed two other issues regarding evidence of cause of damages and the issue of standing as to who owned the land and thus the crops.
Court Reverses Its Order to Strike Expert Testimony That Utilized the Discounted Cash Flow Method in Valuing a Business
This case was a motion to reconsider the court’s ruling that struck expert testimony because the expert used the discounted cash flow method to determine the value of a business that went out of business. Upon reconsideration, the court decided that such method was allowable in this case and, therefore, the testimony should be reinstated and presented to the jury for use in determining damages.