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
In Appraisal Action, Court Determines Fair Value Using Deal Price Minus Synergies and Adjusting for Increase in Value From Signing to Closing of Merger
In a merger action involving a publicly traded company, dissenting shareholders sued for a higher value than the deal consideration. Under the applicable appraisal jurisprudence, the court calculates fair value using the deal price minus synergies and adjusting for the change in value of the target between the signing and closing of the transaction.
Estate of Michael J. Jackson v. Commissioner
Tax Court mostly sides with estate of late superstar in valuing three contested assets; assets had to be valued separately, based on parties’ stipulations, and at death; court says Jackson’s “tattered” image and likeness meant he earned little money apart from his music; court rejects tax affecting.
Tax Court Hands Jackson Estate Major Win but Finds Reasoning for Tax Affecting Unpersuasive
Tax Court mostly sides with estate of late superstar in valuing three contested assets; assets had to be valued separately, based on parties’ stipulations, and at death; court says Jackson’s “tattered” image and likeness meant he earned little money apart from his music; court rejects tax affecting.
Oudheusden v. Oudheusden (II)
In this divorce case, the Connecticut Supreme Court, overturning the appellate court, clarifies that awarding the nonowner spouse part of the value of the owner spouse’s businesses and basing alimony on income generated from the businesses is not impermissible double counting (double dipping).
Connecticut Supreme Court Clarifies Double Counting Rule in Divorce Cases Involving Valuation of a Business and Determination of Alimony
In this divorce case, the Connecticut Supreme Court, overturning the appellate court, clarifies that awarding the nonowner spouse part of the value of the owner spouse’s businesses and basing alimony on income generated from the businesses is not impermissible double counting (double dipping).
In Buyout Dispute, Appeals Court Finds There Was No Basis for Jury to Set Aside Appraisers’ Contractually Mandated Value Determination
In buyout dispute, appeals court reverses trial court’s judgment, finding it was based on jury’s erroneous decision to set aside a contractually mandated appraisal and provide its own buyout price; there was no indication the appraisers misinterpreted the controlling partnership agreement; court remands.
Parrish v. Schroering
In buyout dispute, appeals court reverses trial court’s judgment, finding it was based on jury’s erroneous decision to set aside a contractually mandated appraisal and provide its own buyout price; there was no indication the appraisers misinterpreted the controlling partnership agreement; court remands ...
Ryan Trust v. Ryan
In family buyout dispute, state high court affirms trial court’s decision to adopt expert valuation testimony for selling majority shareholder, finding expert’s DCF inputs were reasonable as was selection of multiple of earnings in GPTC analysis; expert’s explanation for S corp premium was convincing.
State Supreme Court Affirms Adoption of Selling Shareholder’s Expert Value Findings
In family buyout dispute, state high court affirms trial court’s decision to adopt expert valuation testimony for selling majority shareholder, finding expert’s DCF inputs were reasonable as was selection of multiple of earnings in GPTC analysis; expert’s explanation for S corp premium was convincing.
Patent Infringement Case Provides Judge With a Plethora of Daubert Challenges to Rule on
In this patent infringement case, the court ruled on a plethora of Daubert/Rule 702 challenges. The opinion provides an exhaustive list of Daubert-related issues that the court ruled on and provides a good tutorial on the real purposes of Daubert.
Shire ViroPharma Inc. v. CSL Behring LLC
In this patent infringement case, the court ruled on a plethora of Daubert/Rule 702 challenges. The opinion provides an exhaustive list of Daubert-related issues that the court ruled on and provides a good tutorial on the real purposes of Daubert.
King v. King
This divorce case appeal deals with three primary issues: the determination of the value of insurance agency marital asset, the determination of the amount of personal goodwill attaching to the insurance agency, and the appropriate amount of alimony. The court remands the value of the business as it relates to the exclusion by the trial court of the liabilities the business owed, remands as to the appropriate amount of personal goodwill, and remands as to the erroneous level of income of the husband for determination of alimony.
Florida Trial Court’s Valuation Findings, Including Personal Goodwill Determination, Do Not Hold Up Under Appeals Court Scrutiny
This divorce case appeal deals with three primary issues: the determination of the value of insurance agency marital asset, the determination of the amount of personal goodwill attaching to the insurance agency, and the appropriate amount of alimony. The court remands the value of the business as it relates to the exclusion by the trial court of the liabilities the business owed, remands as to the appropriate amount of personal goodwill, and remands as to the erroneous level of income of the husband for determination of alimony.
Whitesell Corp. v. Electrolux Home Prods.
In this Rule 26 discovery case, court says sanctions are inappropriate where the defendant had no duty to disclose its expert’s “intermediary” working paper; however, sanctions are appropriate related to the expert’s miscalculations; court finds expert testimony is admissible under Daubert.
Scalia v. Reliance Trust Co.
In an evolving ESOP case, court says DOL’s allegations that ESOP trustee and various directors engaged in breaches of fiduciary duties and caused the ESOP to enter a prohibited transaction (i.e., overpaid for company stock) require “fact-intensive inquiry” and cannot be resolved on summary judgment.
Expert’s Damages Testimony Prompts Motion for Sanctions and Motion to Exclude Under Daubert
In this Rule 26 discovery case, court says sanctions are inappropriate where the defendant had no duty to disclose its expert’s “intermediary” working paper; however, sanctions are appropriate related to the expert’s miscalculations; court finds expert testimony is admissible under Daubert.
Court Says DOL Claims in ESOP Case Require ‘Fact-Intensive Inquiry’ and Denies Motions for Summary Judgment
In an evolving ESOP case, court says DOL’s allegations that ESOP trustee and various directors engaged in breaches of fiduciary duties and caused the ESOP to enter a prohibited transaction (i.e., overpaid for company stock) require “fact-intensive inquiry” and cannot be resolved on summary judgment.
Court Declines Motion to Dismiss Claim of Coverage for Loss of Income, but Dismisses the Claim of Coverage Under the Civil Authority Provision
In this business interruption case resulting from mandatory shutdowns to control COVID-19, the court declined to grant a motion to dismiss the claim of plaintiff as to coverage for loss of business income but does dismiss the claim of coverage under the civil authority provision of the policy. The court found the wording of the policy sufficiently vague, especially as to the meaning and definition of the word “loss.” In the case of the civil authority provision of the policy, the court decided that plaintiff has not alleged that “[a]ccess to the area immediately surrounding the damaged property is prohibited by civil authority.”
Derek Scott Williams PLLC v. Cincinnati Ins. Co.
In this business interruption case resulting from mandatory shutdowns to control COVID-19, the court declined to grant a motion to dismiss the claim of plaintiff as to coverage for loss of business income but does dismiss the claim of coverage under the civil authority provision of the policy. The court found the wording of the policy sufficiently vague, especially as to the meaning and definition of the word “loss.” In the case of the civil authority provision of the policy, the court decided that plaintiff has not alleged that “[a]ccess to the area immediately surrounding the damaged property is prohibited by civil authority.”
Court Grants Insurance Company’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint That It Suffered Covered Loss of Income Due to COVID-19 Restrictions
In this business interruption case resulting from mandatory restrictions to control COVID-19, the court grants a motion to dismiss claims of the plaintiff. The plaintiff’s arguments that it suffered physical loss or damage to its properties did not sway the court. Nor did its arguments that the civil authority provisions and virus exclusion in the policy were not applicable to deny its claims.
Equity Planning Corp. v. Westfield Ins. Co.
In this business interruption case resulting from mandatory restrictions to control COVID-19, the court grants a motion to dismiss claims of the plaintiff. The plaintiff’s arguments that it suffered physical loss or damage to its properties did not sway the court. Nor did its arguments that the civil authority provisions and virus exclusion in the policy were not applicable to deny its claims.
In COVID-19 Case, Federal Court Declines to Decide Contentious ‘Direct Physical Loss’ Issue and Sends Case Back to State Court
In this business interruption case resulting from mandatory shutdowns to control COVID-19, the federal court grants the plaintiffs’ motion to remand the action back to Minnesota state court to resolve the disputed issue of what qualifies as direct physical loss under state law.
Life Time, Inc. v. Zurich Am. Ins. Co.
In this business interruption case resulting from mandatory shutdowns to control COVID-19, the federal court grants the plaintiffs’ motion to remand the action back to Minnesota state court to resolve the disputed issue of what qualifies as direct physical loss under state law.
Brunswick Panini’s v. Zurich Am. Ins. Co.
In this business interruption case resulting from mandatory shutdowns to control COVID-19, the court granted defendant insurer’s motion to dismiss the plaintiffs’ claims. The court found the plaintiffs, which operated restaurant and bar facilities in Ohio but had to suspend operations because of the pandemic, did not meet the precondition of “direct physical loss of or damage to” the covered property requirement. Further, the microorganism exclusion precluded coverage of losses.
Court Rejects Plaintiffs’ Argument That Policy Covered Loss of Full Use of Premises Due to COVID-19-Related Shutdowns and Grants Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss
In this business interruption case resulting from mandatory shutdowns to control COVID-19, the court granted defendant insurer’s motion to dismiss the plaintiffs’ claims. The court found the plaintiffs, which operated restaurant and bar facilities in Ohio but had to suspend operations because of the pandemic, did not meet the precondition of “direct physical loss of or damage to” the covered property requirement. Further, the microorganism exclusion precluded coverage of losses.