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
New York Appellate Court Affirms Award of Value of Husband’s Class B Units in Lieu of Actual Distribution of Share of Units
The trial court in this New York divorce awarded the value of the husband’s class B units in lieu of awarding a portion of the actual units to the wife and also barred the wife from any distributions on those units occurring after the valuation date.
Gutierrez v. Padilla
The plaintiffs bought two automotive supply businesses from the defendant. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendant and the defendant’s broker made representations about the condition of the businesses during the sale and breached various terms of the sale contract. The district court dismissed complaints against the defendant’s broker and awarded damages to both parties regarding alleged actions in regard to the sale contract. The appeals court affirmed the district court’s decisions.
New Mexico Appeals Court Affirms Awards of Damages to Both Parties on Claims of Breach of Contract
The plaintiffs bought two automotive supply businesses from the defendant. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendant and the defendant’s broker made representations about the condition of the businesses during the sale and breached various terms of the sale contract. The district court dismissed complaints against the defendant’s broker and awarded damages to both parties regarding alleged actions in regard to the sale contract. The appeals court affirmed the district court’s decisions.
Gamache v. Hogue
In a motion related to a lawsuit asserting ERISA violations under the ESOP plan for the defendants, including the Administrative Committee of Technical Associates of Georgia Inc. ESOP and certain individuals, the defendants moved to exclude the testimony and report of the plaintiffs’ expert, Jeffrey Krenzel. Krenzel was an “employee benefits lawyer” with 21 years’ experience, including eight years as a partner in a firm specializing in ESOP transactions. The court determined that Krenzel was qualified and that his opinions and report were reliable and helpful to the trier of fact.
U.S. District Court in Georgia Allows Testimony of Attorney as to ESOP Transaction Process for Employment Agreements
In a motion related to a lawsuit asserting ERISA violations under the ESOP plan for the defendants, including the Administrative Committee of Technical Associates of Georgia Inc. ESOP and certain individuals, the defendants moved to exclude the testimony and report of the plaintiffs’ expert, Jeffrey Krenzel. Krenzel was an “employee benefits lawyer” with 21 years’ experience, including eight years as a partner in a firm specializing in ESOP transactions. The court determined that Krenzel was qualified and that his opinions and report were reliable and helpful to the trier of fact.
Maher v. Cmejrek
The wife appealed the trial court’s decisions as to the values of the husband’s interests in his various medical practices and clinics and challenged the trial court’s determination of the husband’s income for support purposes. The appellate court affirmed the values of the medical practices and clinics and remanded the determination of income for support purposes for recalculation.
Indiana Appellate Court Affirms Valuation of Medical Practice Interests of Husband but Remands for Recalculation of Husband’s Income for Child Support
The wife appealed the trial court’s decisions as to the values of the husband’s interests in his various medical practices and clinics and challenged the trial court’s determination of the husband’s income for support purposes. The appellate court affirmed the values of the medical practices and clinics and remanded the determination of income for support purposes for recalculation.
Expert Survives Daubert—Allowed to Testify as to Lost Business Value
The case dealt with two motions to preclude testimony of an expert witness as to the loss in value of the plaintiff’s business. The plaintiff was an environmental consulting firm allegedly injured as a result of the actions of certain employees including breach of their fiduciary duty. The court concluded that the witness may testify because his report was based on sufficient facts and data and he applied reliable principles to the facts of this case.
White Buffalo Env’t, Inc. v. Hungry Horse, LLC
The case dealt with two motions to preclude testimony of an expert witness as to the loss in value of the plaintiff’s business. The plaintiff was an environmental consulting firm allegedly injured as a result of the actions of certain employees including breach of their fiduciary duty. The court concluded that the witness may testify because his report was based on sufficient facts and data and he applied reliable principles to the facts of this case.
Hoensheid v. Comm’r (In re Estate of Hoensheid)
The taxpayers made a valid gift of stock, but they realized and recognized gain because their right to the proceeds from the sale occurred before the gift was made. They also were not entitled to a charitable contribution deduction because they did not procure a qualified appraisal. The taxpayers were not liable for an underpayment penalty.
Petitioners Not Allowed a Charitable Contribution—Did Not Use a Qualified Appraiser
The taxpayers made a valid gift of stock, but they realized and recognized gain because their right to the proceeds from the sale occurred before the gift was made. They also were not entitled to a charitable contribution deduction because they did not procure a qualified appraisal. The taxpayers were not liable for an underpayment penalty.
Griggs v. Griggs
The husband appealed this Vermont divorce case to the State Supreme Court inter alia to challenge the inclusion of PPP loan proceeds by the wife’s expert in determining the cash flows of the husband’s electrician services business for purposes of determining a value of the business using the capitalization of earnings method. The Supreme Court affirmed the lower trial court on this issue and allowed the PPP proceeds to be included in the cash flows.
Vermont Supreme Court Allows Inclusion of PPP Proceeds in Cap Earnings Cash Flow for Determination of Value
The husband appealed this Vermont divorce case to the State Supreme Court inter alia to challenge the inclusion of PPP loan proceeds by the wife’s expert in determining the cash flows of the husband’s electrician services business for purposes of determining a value of the business using the capitalization of earnings method. The Supreme Court affirmed the lower trial court on this issue and allowed the PPP proceeds to be included in the cash flows.
Tax Court (Grudgingly) Allows Tax Affecting Under the SEAM Method
This was a gift tax valuation case the U.S. Tax Court decided. Gifts of minority interests in The Biltmore Co. were made from the its shareholders, the Cecils, to their children and grandchildren. The IRS audited the gift tax returns and assessed deficiencies for reporting too low fair market values of the gifts of The Biltmore Co. stock. Both sides presented experts to value the gifted interests. The experts agreed that the cash flows should be tax affected. The court accepted the tax affecting while allowing that it was not an admission by the Tax Court that tax affecting should apply in all cases. The Tax Court made changes to the values presented and cobbled together a final value that resulted in refunds to the taxpayers/petitioners.
Estate of Cecil v. Comm’r
This was a gift tax valuation case the U.S. Tax Court decided. Gifts of minority interests in The Biltmore Co. were made from the its shareholders, the Cecils, to their children and grandchildren. The IRS audited the gift tax returns and assessed deficiencies for reporting too low fair market values of the gifts of The Biltmore Co. stock. Both sides presented experts to value the gifted interests. The experts agreed that the cash flows should be tax affected. The court accepted the tax affecting while allowing that it was not an admission by the Tax Court that tax affecting should apply in all cases. The Tax Court made changes to the values presented and cobbled together a final value that resulted in refunds to the taxpayers/petitioners.
Nix v. Nix
This case concerned an appeal of a trial court opinion in a divorce case in Indiana. The trial court based the value of a warehousing and logistics business on an offer to purchase the business the daughter of the divorcing parties presented at trial. The mother, the owner operator of the business, rejected the offer, made prior to the filing for dissolution of marriage. The appellate court remanded the decision of the trial court for revaluation of the business with instructions to determine a value within the valuation conclusions experts submitted for each party at trial.
Indiana Appellate Court Remands Value of Business—Trial Court Value Based on a Defective Offer to Purchase
This case concerned an appeal of a trial court opinion in a divorce case in Indiana. The trial court based the value of a warehousing and logistics business on an offer to purchase the business the daughter of the divorcing parties presented at trial. The mother, the owner operator of the business, rejected the offer, made prior to the filing for dissolution of marriage. The appellate court remanded the decision of the trial court for revaluation of the business with instructions to determine a value within the valuation conclusions experts submitted for each party at trial.
Cummings v. Cummings
In this appeal of a divorce case in Kentucky, the court determined that the family court did not abuse its discretion in its distribution of the proceeds of the sale of the husband’s veterinary practice. The family court determined that most of the proceeds were enterprise goodwill and, thus, marital property.
Kentucky Court Does Not Consider Date of Marriage Value of Veterinary Practice—Most of Value Is Enterprise Goodwill and, Thus, Marital
In this appeal of a divorce case in Kentucky, the court determined that the family court did not abuse its discretion in its distribution of the proceeds of the sale of the husband’s veterinary practice. The family court determined that most of the proceeds were enterprise goodwill and, thus, marital property.
O’Mahony v. Whiston
In a case of disputes among the owners of an Irish soccer bar in New York City, the court awarded economic damages and punitive damages after the controlling owners took proceeds of a lease buyout of the bar’s prior location to establish a new identical bar in a new location while cutting out the minority owners from the new bar. Using assets of the old corporation and thereby misappropriating a corporate opportunity of the old corporation, they started a new identical bar (including the name) in a new location in a corporation the control owners set up.
New York Court Awards Lost Corporate Opportunity and Punitive Damages in Restaurant-Related Case
In a case of disputes among the owners of an Irish soccer bar in New York City, the court awarded economic damages and punitive damages after the controlling owners took proceeds of a lease buyout of the bar’s prior location to establish a new identical bar in a new location while cutting out the minority owners from the new bar. Using assets of the old corporation and thereby misappropriating a corporate opportunity of the old corporation, they started a new identical bar (including the name) in a new location in a corporation the control owners set up.
Johnston v. Vincent
The plaintiffs and defendants in this case, upon appeal to the Supreme Court of Louisiana, appealed certain rulings of the Louisiana Court of Appeals. The defendants asserted that the Court of Appeals failed to apply the manifest error standard correctly in reversing the district court’s findings of what constituted trade secrets and their misappropriation. The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals on this issue. The Supreme Court also reversed the Court of Appeals as to the increase in the amount of lost profits damages. The Supreme Court also affirmed the Court of Appeals in its determination that actual damages must be trebled and that unjust enrichment damages must be awarded in some amount but were not to be trebled.
Louisiana Supreme Court Reverses Appellate Court as to Misapplication of the Correct Manifest Error Standard, Other Damages-Related Issues
The plaintiffs and defendants in this case, upon appeal to the Supreme Court of Louisiana, appealed certain rulings of the Louisiana Court of Appeals. The defendants asserted that the Court of Appeals failed to apply the manifest error standard correctly in reversing the district court’s findings of what constituted trade secrets and their misappropriation. The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals on this issue. The Supreme Court also reversed the Court of Appeals as to the increase in the amount of lost profits damages. The Supreme Court also affirmed the Court of Appeals in its determination that actual damages must be trebled and that unjust enrichment damages must be awarded in some amount but were not to be trebled.
California Appellate Court Affirms That the Marital Settlement Agreement Should Not Be Set Aside for Alleged Inadequate Disclosures
The husband and wife entered into a settlement agreement as to their divorce that was included in the trial court’s judgment of dissolution. The wife thereafter asked the trial court to set the agreement aside due to, among other things, the husband’s failure to disclose his ownership interests in various businesses. The appellate court found the evidence for her motion(s) to be lacking and affirmed the trial court.
In re Hettinga
The husband and wife entered into a settlement agreement as to their divorce that was included in the trial court’s judgment of dissolution. The wife thereafter asked the trial court to set the agreement aside due to, among other things, the husband’s failure to disclose his ownership interests in various businesses. The appellate court found the evidence for her motion(s) to be lacking and affirmed the trial court.