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
Appellate Court (Wisconsin) Affirms Trial Court Allocation of Tax Liability and Business Value in Divorce
The husband appealed the circuit court’s decision regarding his divorce decree and an order denying his motion to reconsider issues regarding the parties’ property division. He argued the circuit court erred in allocating less than half of the parties’ tax liability to the wife. He also argued the circuit court erred in denying his motion to reopen evidence regarding the impact of COVID-19 on his salon business. The appellate court rejected his arguments and affirmed the circuit court.
Gore v. Gore
The key element in the appeal of this divorce case revolved around the valuation of the wife’s business, selling dietary supplements online. The wife failed to produce in a timely manner the documents the husband requested. She also failed to timely declare an expert who could testify as to the value of her business. “Wife appealed the circuit court’s award of monetary sanctions and the court’s exclusion of her and her expert’s testimony regarding her company’s valuation, as well as her attempts to testify regarding the value of her business. Husband cross-appealed the court’s distribution of marital property and the resultant monetary award.”
Vieira v. Think Tank Logistics, LLC (In re Levesque)
In this adversary Chapter 7 proceeding, the trustee sought to avoid the debtor’s transfer of his interest in two corporate entities and either recover the interests or the value of such interests from the defendants. As part of this proceeding, the court was asked to decide on two motions in limine regarding an valuation expert from each side. The motions (Daubert) asked that the experts not be allowed to testify. The court granted in part and denied in part the motions of the parties.
Appellate Court (Maryland) Affirms Trial Court’s Decision to Exclude Testimony of Wife’s Expert
The key element in the appeal of this divorce case revolved around the valuation of the wife’s business, selling dietary supplements online. The wife failed to produce in a timely manner the documents the husband requested. She also failed to timely declare an expert who could testify as to the value of her business. “Wife appealed the circuit court’s award of monetary sanctions and the court’s exclusion of her and her expert’s testimony regarding her company’s valuation, as well as her attempts to testify regarding the value of her business. Husband cross-appealed the court’s distribution of marital property and the resultant monetary award.”
Bankruptcy Court (South Carolina) Grants in Part and Denies in Part Motions to Exclude Experts in Daubert Motions
In this adversary Chapter 7 proceeding, the trustee sought to avoid the debtor’s transfer of his interest in two corporate entities and either recover the interests or the value of such interests from the defendants. As part of this proceeding, the court was asked to decide on two motions in limine regarding an valuation expert from each side. The motions (Daubert) asked that the experts not be allowed to testify. The court granted in part and denied in part the motions of the parties.
Tennebaum v. Deshpande
In this Minnesota appeal of a marital dissolution decree, the district court received valuations from experts representing both parties and determined the value of the husband’s business interest in an asset management company. The husband appealed that value. The district court had considered matters of methodology as well as personal goodwill. The court of appeals found that the district court did not abuse its discretion and affirmed the judgment of the district court.
Valuation of Husband’s Business Interest Considers Credibility, Personal Goodwill, and Other Issues
In this Minnesota appeal of a marital dissolution decree, the district court received valuations from experts representing both parties and determined the value of the husband’s business interest in an asset management company. The husband appealed that value. The district court had considered matters of methodology as well as personal goodwill. The court of appeals found that the district court did not abuse its discretion and affirmed the judgment of the district court.
Chancery Court Determines Value of Shares by Applying Average of GPCM and DCF Methodologies
In a long and complex opinion, the Delaware Court of Chancery determined the value per share of stock in a former stockholder’s appraisal action. The per-share value was reached by ascribing equal weight to adjusted versions of the comparable companies analysis (GPCM) the stockholder advanced and the discounted cash flow analysis the company advanced. The other methodologies were rejected. The use of the GPCM represented the first use of that method in some years.
HBK Master Fund L.P. v. Pivotal Software, Inc.
In a long and complex opinion, the Delaware Court of Chancery determined the value per share of stock in a former stockholder’s appraisal action. The per-share value was reached by ascribing equal weight to adjusted versions of the comparable companies analysis (GPCM) the stockholder advanced and the discounted cash flow analysis the company advanced. The other methodologies were rejected. The use of the GPCM represented the first use of that method in some years.
Rosenthal v. Erber
In a New York business dispute, the court analyzed valuation reports from both sides and then determined the fair value of the entity and of the selling shareholder’s 50% interest. Offering criticisms of both reports, she then started with the report of the selling shareholder’s report and discarded the report of the buying shareholder, which had some evidentiary issues as to back rent due and other issues.
Fair Value Decision Analyzes Valuation Issues
In a New York business dispute, the court analyzed valuation reports from both sides and then determined the fair value of the entity and of the selling shareholder’s 50% interest. Offering criticisms of both reports, she then started with the report of the selling shareholder’s report and discarded the report of the buying shareholder, which had some evidentiary issues as to back rent due and other issues.
NetApp, Inc. v. Cinelli
The defendant hid improper recording of revenue from use of internal software in unaudited financial statements that were represented to be GAAP-compliant. The defendant was held to have breached the merger/sale contract in a manner that resulted in fraud. The plaintiff was awarded damages. The court accepted the expert’s GPCM as the most “responsible estimate” of the private company’s value as it was presented to the plaintiff.
Seller Breached Terms of Merger Agreement Including That Statements Were GAAP-Compliant—Expert’s GPCM Accepted
The defendant hid improper recording of revenue from use of internal software in unaudited financial statements that were represented to be GAAP-compliant. The defendant was held to have breached the merger/sale contract in a manner that resulted in fraud. The plaintiff was awarded damages. The court accepted the expert’s GPCM as the most “responsible estimate” of the private company’s value as it was presented to the plaintiff.
Physician Shareholder Asserts Transaction Bonuses Breach Board’s Fiduciary Duties—Appeals Court Finds Them Just and Reasonable
A physician shareholder claimed that the fair market value of his one share (of 75 total shares) was undervalued when the physician practice was merged and sold to NAMM California, a company that develops and manages physician provider networks. NAMM paid $18 million in the merger, and over $12 million of that amount was paid to individual physician shareholders in the form of “transaction bonuses.” The remaining almost $6 million was paid pro rata to the shareholders. The plaintiff appealed the judgment of the California trial court, but the appellate court deemed the transaction bonuses as “just and reasonable” and affirmed the trial court.
Ghaly v. Riverside Cmty. Healthplan Med. Grp.
A physician shareholder claimed that the fair market value of his one share (of 75 total shares) was undervalued when the physician practice was merged and sold to NAMM California, a company that develops and manages physician provider networks. NAMM paid $18 million in the merger, and over $12 million of that amount was paid to individual physician shareholders in the form of “transaction bonuses.” The remaining almost $6 million was paid pro rata to the shareholders. The plaintiff appealed the judgment of the California trial court, but the appellate court deemed the transaction bonuses as “just and reasonable” and affirmed the trial court.
Bankruptcy Court Determines Fair Value Under Asset Approach With ‘Limited Evidence’ Available to It
This case involved a hotly contested battle over the fate of a Ponderosa restaurant in Michigan. The two owners, having had a falling out, pursued contentious litigation to wrest control of the restaurant from each other. Having no business valuation available to the court, the court was left with a real estate appraisal and limited evidence of assets and liabilities to determine the fair value of a 50% interest in the restaurant to be used in the buyout of one of the shareholders by the other shareholder.
Herremans v. Fedo (In re Herremans)
This case involved a hotly contested battle over the fate of a Ponderosa restaurant in Michigan. The two owners, having had a falling out, pursued contentious litigation to wrest control of the restaurant from each other. Having no business valuation available to the court, the court was left with a real estate appraisal and limited evidence of assets and liabilities to determine the fair value of a 50% interest in the restaurant to be used in the buyout of one of the shareholders by the other shareholder.
In re Marriage of Sommerville
This Iowa divorce case dealt with an appeal by the wife of the determined earnings of the husband and awards of child support and spousal maintenance. She also contended that the husband dissipated marital assets by failing to pay taxes and incurring penalties and interest. The appellate court determined that the trial court erred in determining the husband’s income and thus remanded for redetermination of child support and spousal support awards. The appellate court also affirmed the determination that the husband did not dissipate marital assets and affirmed the property division. Issues of evidence to determine income or earnings were also discussed.
Appellate Court Remands for New Determination of Husband’s Earnings, Affirms No Dissipation of Assets
This Iowa divorce case dealt with an appeal by the wife of the determined earnings of the husband and awards of child support and spousal maintenance. She also contended that the husband dissipated marital assets by failing to pay taxes and incurring penalties and interest. The appellate court determined that the trial court erred in determining the husband’s income and thus remanded for redetermination of child support and spousal support awards. The appellate court also affirmed the determination that the husband did not dissipate marital assets and affirmed the property division. Issues of evidence to determine income or earnings were also discussed.
Laurilliard v. McNamee Lochner, P.C.
The plaintiffs, minority shareholder employees in a law firm, brought suit against their firm for breaching their employment contracts. The court determined that the plaintiffs were at-will employees and that there was no breach of their agreements when they were terminated. The court also determined that the under-market-value payment under their repurchase agreements was allowable since they were at-will employees.
New York Court Allows Enforcement of Under-Market-Value Buy-Sell and Approves At-Will Termination of Shareholder-Employees
The plaintiffs, minority shareholder employees in a law firm, brought suit against their firm for breaching their employment contracts. The court determined that the plaintiffs were at-will employees and that there was no breach of their agreements when they were terminated. The court also determined that the under-market-value payment under their repurchase agreements was allowable since they were at-will employees.
Chalasani v. Bollempalli
In this Arizona appeal of a divorce case, the husband physician did not engage a valuation expert and impeded the discovery of information relevant to the valuation to the wife’s valuation expert. The Appeals Court affirmed the trial court’s decision of value and its apportionment of 50% of the husband’s value in the practice, noting the lack of an expert by the husband and the failure of the husband’s practice to cooperate with the wife’s expert.
Appeals Court Affirms Value of Husband’s Medical Practice—He Fails to Provide Expert Testimony as to the Value
In this Arizona appeal of a divorce case, the husband physician did not engage a valuation expert and impeded the discovery of information relevant to the valuation to the wife’s valuation expert. The Appeals Court affirmed the trial court’s decision of value and its apportionment of 50% of the husband’s value in the practice, noting the lack of an expert by the husband and the failure of the husband’s practice to cooperate with the wife’s expert.
Bankruptcy Appeals Panel Affirms Confirmation of Chapter 11 Plan Despite Objection of Largest Unsecured Creditor
The debtor was a manufacturer of wet wipe cleaning products. It contracted with a new customer to manufacture wipes for the customer in the U.S. and to sell such wipes to the new customer. The customer failed to obtain EPA and state-level product registrations and refused to purchase manufactured wipes or to honor its commitments regarding loans to the debtor for new equipment leases and other costs to expand the debtor’s facilities to meet the demands of the contracts. The debtor ultimately filed for bankruptcy and delivered a Chapter 11 plan that included selling its assets. The Bankruptcy Court approved the plan. The creditor appealed the approval of the plan, but the appeals panel affirmed.
Albaad USA, Inc. v. GPMI, Co. (In re GPMI, Co.)
The debtor was a manufacturer of wet wipe cleaning products. It contracted with a new customer to manufacture wipes for the customer in the U.S. and to sell such wipes to the new customer. The customer failed to obtain EPA and state-level product registrations and refused to purchase manufactured wipes or to honor its commitments regarding loans to the debtor for new equipment leases and other costs to expand the debtor’s facilities to meet the demands of the contracts. The debtor ultimately filed for bankruptcy and delivered a Chapter 11 plan that included selling its assets. The Bankruptcy Court approved the plan. The creditor appealed the approval of the plan, but the appeals panel affirmed.