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
Family Tacos, LLC v. Auto Owners Ins. Co.
In this business interruption case resulting from mandatory shutdowns to control COVID-19, the court grants motions of the defendant to dismiss claims of the plaintiff. The plaintiff files claims for coverage under its insurance policy for losses resulting from COVID-19 shutdowns and seeks to establish a class. The court decides that coverage is not provided under the policy because there is no physical loss; the civil authority provision is likewise not effective, and there is a virus exception that is applicable to the case at hand.
MIKMAR, Inc. v. Westfield Ins. Co.
In this business interruption case resulting from mandatory shutdowns to control COVID-19, the court grants the defendant insurance company’s motion to dismiss plaintiffs’ complaint seeking coverage for lost business income under their insurance policies. Plaintiffs operated a hotel and adjacent banquet and catering facility. In ruling against the plaintiffs, the court found the virus did not perceptibly harm the properties and the policies included a virus exclusion that prevented coverage of business losses.
Plaintiff Fails to Convince the Court That Physical Loss or Physical Damage Has Occurred; Virus Clause Applies and Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Is Granted
In this business interruption case resulting from mandatory shutdowns to control COVID-19, the court grants motions of the defendant to dismiss claims of the plaintiff. The plaintiff files claims for coverage under its insurance policy for losses resulting from COVID-19 shutdowns and seeks to establish a class. The court decides that coverage is not provided under the policy because there is no physical loss; the civil authority provision is likewise not effective, and there is a virus exception that is applicable to the case at hand.
Torgerson Props. v. Cont’l Cas. Co.
In this business interruption case resulting from mandatory shutdowns to control COVID-19, a federal court granted the defendant insurer’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s suit over coverage, finding plaintiff’s claim for loss of income based on state orders restricting use does not meet “direct physical loss” prerequisite.
Innovation Ventures, L.L.C. v. Custom Nutrition Labs., L.L.C.
This case involves a consideration of motions by both the plaintiff and the defendant to exclude the testimony of the other party’s expert witness on the basis of Daubert and the Federal Rules of Evidence. The plaintiff’s expert offered testimony on how to calculate lost profits based on the plaintiff’s market share. The defendant’s expert offered testimony as to weaknesses in the plaintiff’s calculations and opinions on damages. The court denied both of these cross-motions.
The District Court Refuses to Throw Out Experts Under Daubert Motions, Citing Differences in Admissibility and Scrutiny Under Cross-Examination
This case involves a consideration of motions by both the plaintiff and the defendant to exclude the testimony of the other party’s expert witness on the basis of Daubert and the Federal Rules of Evidence. The plaintiff’s expert offered testimony on how to calculate lost profits based on the plaintiff’s market share. The defendant’s expert offered testimony as to weaknesses in the plaintiff’s calculations and opinions on damages. The court denied both of these cross-motions.
Court Says Plaintiff Fails to State Plausible Claim to Relief for COVID-19-Related Losses but Allows Amendment of Complaint
In this business interruption case resulting from mandatory shutdowns to control COVID-19, the court says the plaintiff, a California restaurant, failed to state plausible claims to relief but gives plaintiff an opportunity to amend its complaint, even if “it does not seem likely” the plaintiff will be able to overcome the complaint’s deficiencies.
Protégé Rest. Partners LLC v. Sentinel Ins. Co.
In this business interruption case resulting from mandatory shutdowns to control COVID-19, the court says the plaintiff, a California restaurant, failed to state plausible claims to relief but gives plaintiff an opportunity to amend its complaint, even if “it does not seem likely” the plaintiff will be able to overcome the complaint’s deficiencies.
Indiana Supreme Court Rejects Blanket Rule Against Discounts in Compulsory, Closed-Market Share Buyback
High court says there is no blanket rule against the use of discounts in a compulsory, closed-market buyback; parties’ freedom to contract right allowed for discounts under shareholder agreement that mandated buyback of plaintiff’s minority interest by company under fair market value standard.
Hartman v. BigInch Fabricators & Construction Holding Co., Inc. (Hartman II)
High court says there is no blanket rule against the use of discounts in a compulsory, closed-market buyback; parties’ freedom to contract right allowed for discounts under shareholder agreement that mandated buyback of plaintiff’s minority interest by company under fair market value standard.
Tax Court Rejects Claimed Deduction for Management Fees
The U.S. Tax Court recently agreed with the Internal Revenue Service that management fees a corporation paid to its three shareholders over a three-year period were not deductible since none of the fees were paid “purely for services” and the petitioner failed to show the fees were “ordinary, necessary, and reasonable.” Rather, they represented disguised distributions, the court found.
Aspro, Inc. v Commissioner
The U.S. Tax Court recently agreed with the Internal Revenue Service that management fees a corporation paid to its three shareholders over a three-year period were not deductible since none of the fees were paid “purely for services” and the petitioner failed to show the fees were “ordinary, necessary, and reasonable.” Rather, they represented disguised distributions, the court found.
Gerring Props. v. Gerring
In this shareholder oppression suit appeal, the Minnesota appellate court upheld the prejudicial conduct to an oppressed shareholder and affirmed the disallowance of a marketability discount. Further, the appellate court affirmed the trial court’s order for dissolution when the appellants failed to exercise the option to pay court-ordered stock-buyout amounts.
Minnesota Appellate Court Upholds Prejudicial Conduct to Oppressed Shareholder and Affirms Disallowance of Marketability Discount
In this shareholder oppression suit appeal, the Minnesota appellate court upheld the prejudicial conduct to an oppressed shareholder and affirmed the disallowance of a marketability discount. Further, the appellate court affirmed the trial court’s order for dissolution when the appellants failed to exercise the option to pay court-ordered stock-buyout amounts.
In re Kinser Group LLC
In § 506(a) hotel valuations, bankruptcy court finds creditor’s experienced expert premised appraisals on “fundamentally flawed” base assumption that hotels would be sold on the valuation date, where debtor’s plan said debtor would retain and operate hotels; court said replacement value applied.
Expert’s Failure to Review Debtor’s Reorganization Plan Results in ‘Defective’ Hotel Appraisals
In § 506(a) hotel valuations, bankruptcy court finds creditor’s experienced expert premised appraisals on “fundamentally flawed” base assumption that hotels would be sold on the valuation date, where debtor’s plan said debtor would retain and operate hotels; court said replacement value applied.
AFM Mattress Co. v. Motorists Commercial Mutual Insurance Company
In this business interruption case resulting from mandatory shutdowns to control COVID-19, the court grants a motion to dismiss claims of plaintiff. While plaintiff claims losses due to COVID-19, it does not sufficiently move the court to consider the virus exclusion of the policy inapplicable. A motion for a sur-response to espouse an alternative theory was also denied but without prejudice.
In COVID-19 Business Interruption Case, Court Finds Plaintiffs Did Not Argue Physical Loss and Virus Exemption Applies
In this business interruption case resulting from mandatory shutdowns to control COVID-19, the court grants a motion to dismiss claims of plaintiff. While plaintiff claims losses due to COVID-19, it does not sufficiently move the court to consider the virus exclusion of the policy inapplicable. A motion for a sur-response to espouse an alternative theory was also denied but without prejudice.
Sufficiently Comparable License Obviates Further Apportionment for Reasonable Royalty
Federal Circuit affirms plaintiff’s damages theory that relies on sufficiently comparable license to calculate reasonable royalty; court says there is an assumption that apportionment was built into negotiations for comparable license, obviating need for further apportionment in instant case.
Vectura v. GlaxoSmithKline LLC
Federal Circuit affirms plaintiff’s damages theory that relies on sufficiently comparable license to calculate reasonable royalty; court says there is an assumption that apportionment was built into negotiations for comparable license, obviating need for further apportionment in instant case.
Coca-Cola Co. v. Comm'r
Coca-Cola had been applying a transfer pricing method called the 10-50-50 since it entered into a closing agreement with the IRS in 198, covering the years 1987 to 1995. Coca-Cola had consistently followed that transfer pricing method; the IRS had audited Coca-Cola annually and “signed off” on that transfer pricing method for over a decade. Upon examination of Coca-Cola’s tax returns for 2007 to 2009, the IRS determined that Coca-Cola’s transfer pricing methodology did not reflect arm’s-length norms because it overcompensated the supply point and undercompensated Coca-Cola. The IRS reallocated income between Coca-Cola and its supply points employing the comparable profits method (CPM) pursuant to Reg. Sec. 1.482-5. The IRS increased Coca-Cola’s taxable income by over $9 billion assessing over $3 billion in additional taxes!
2020’s Most Important Transfer Pricing Case—Coca-Cola
Coca-Cola had been applying a transfer pricing method called the 10-50-50 since it entered into a closing agreement with the IRS in 1986, covering the years 1987 to 1995. Coca-Cola had consistently followed that transfer pricing method; the IRS had audited Coca-Cola annually and “signed off” on that transfer pricing method for over a decade. Upon examination of Coca-Cola’s tax returns for 2007 to 2009, the IRS determined that Coca-Cola’s transfer pricing methodology did not reflect arm’s-length norms because it overcompensated the supply point and undercompensated Coca-Cola. The IRS reallocated income between Coca-Cola and its supply points employing the comparable profits method (CPM) pursuant to Reg. Sec. 1.482-5. The IRS increased Coca-Cola’s taxable income by over $9 billion assessing over $3 billion in additional taxes!
Finkel v. Palm Park, Inc.
In LLC member dispute, court faces “conundrum” where fair value buyout seeks to avoid LLC’s dissolution and court leans on expert’s FMV valuation using net asset value approach premised on “orderly liquidation”; court notes FMV is based on hypothetical actors and transaction, not specific parties.
Court’s Fair Value Determination Leans Heavily on Expert’s Fair Market Valuation Premised on Liquidation
In LLC member dispute, court faces “conundrum” where fair value buyout seeks to avoid LLC’s dissolution and court leans on expert’s FMV valuation using net asset value approach premised on “orderly liquidation”; court notes FMV is based on hypothetical actors and transaction, not specific parties.
Graspa Consulting v. United Nat’l Ins. Co.
In this business interruption case resulting from mandatory shutdowns to control COVID-19, the court dismisses plaintiff’s (a restaurant chain owner/operator) claims against insurance company; plaintiffs did not incur (nor did it assert) physical damages to premises as required by the terms of the insurance policy.