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
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.
Ohio Appellate Court Remands Value of Businesses for Determination of Active Appreciation
This matter involved cross-appeals from a divorce decree in Trumbull County, Ohio. The focus of this digest relates to cross-appeals relating to the values of the husband’s businesses and the matter of active appreciation on those businesses.
Fordeley v. Fordeley
This matter involved cross-appeals from a divorce decree in Trumbull County, Ohio. The focus of this digest relates to cross-appeals relating to the values of the husband’s businesses and the matter of active appreciation on those businesses.
VeroBlue Farms USA Inc. v. Wulf
In this complex case, which the district court judge called “a doozy,” the subject of this subissue was a motion by the defendants to exclude the testimony of the plaintiff’s (VeroBlue Farms USA Inc.) damages expert, Brandi Kleinman, CPA/CFF. The district court judge assigned the case to the court’s magistrate judge for recommendation of decision. The motion alleged a multitude of issues and flaws with the opinions of Kleinman. The magistrate, despite these alleged issues and flaws, denied the motion, thereby allowing Kleinman to testify.
U.S. District Court (Texas) Allows Testimony of Damages Expert Despite Alleged ‘Flawed Opinions’
In this complex case, which the district court judge called “a doozy,” the subject of this subissue was a motion by the defendants to exclude the testimony of the plaintiff’s (VeroBlue Farms USA Inc.) damages expert, Brandi Kleinman, CPA/CFF. The district court judge assigned the case to the court’s magistrate judge for recommendation of decision. The motion alleged a multitude of issues and flaws with the opinions of Kleinman. The magistrate, despite these alleged issues and flaws, denied the motion, thereby allowing Kleinman to testify.
Lamm v. Preston
This was a divorce case with a complex set of issues regarding the marital estate and the businesses of the parties. This Supreme Court of Idaho case and opinion related to one of the businesses, Black Sage Acquisition LLC, in which the couple owned 25%. The magistrate court determined the value of Black Sage Acquisition as $163,373 based on fair market value. The remaining value was determined to be personal goodwill. The Supreme Court (Idaho) affirmed the decision of the district court, which upheld the magistrate court.
Idaho Supreme Court Affirms Magistrate Judge’s Opinion Regarding Personal Goodwill
This was a divorce case with a complex set of issues regarding the marital estate and the businesses of the parties. This Supreme Court of Idaho case and opinion related to one of the businesses, Black Sage Acquisition LLC, in which the couple owned 25%. The magistrate court determined the value of Black Sage Acquisition as $163,373 based on fair market value. The remaining value was determined to be personal goodwill. The Supreme Court (Idaho) affirmed the decision of the district court, which upheld the magistrate court.
Novosel v. Azcon Inc.
In this ESOP-related case, the plaintiff (an ESOP plan beneficiary) raised three complaints, two of which were primarily the result of the performance and use by the ESOP of an interim valuation date for measurement of the value of her shares for her retirement payments made over time. There was also discussion regarding the interim value determined and whether a PPP loan of $1.2 million should have been considered. The defendants moved for dismissal on the first two accounts. The court denied the dismissal of the first complaint in regard to assertions that the use of the interim valuation date was arbitrary and capricious. It also allowed the filing by the plaintiff of a second amended complaint. The court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss the plaintiff’s complaint regarding the asserted cutback of accrued benefits.
ESOP Case Motions Revolve Primarily Around an Interim Valuation and Consideration of a PPP Loan
In this ESOP-related case, the plaintiff (an ESOP plan beneficiary) raised three complaints, two of which were primarily the result of the performance and use by the ESOP of an interim valuation date for measurement of the value of her shares for her retirement payments made over time. There was also discussion regarding the interim value determined and whether a PPP loan of $1.2 million should have been considered. The defendants moved for dismissal on the first two accounts. The court denied the dismissal of the first complaint in regard to assertions that the use of the interim valuation date was arbitrary and capricious. It also allowed the filing by the plaintiff of a second amended complaint. The court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss the plaintiff’s complaint regarding the asserted cutback of accrued benefits.
Donnelly v. ProPharma Grp. Topco LLC
The plaintiff sued for breach of contracts relating to ProPharma’s offer to have Donnelly join the board in 2016 and for not paying him for his incentive equity shares, implemented in 2017, at fair market value. Each side engaged an experienced business valuation expert to opine as to the fair market value of the equity shares. Each side now moved to exclude the testimony of the other side’s expert. The U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware denied the motions of both sides and allowed both experts to testify.
In a Breach of Contract Suit, the U.S. District Court Denies Motions to Exclude Valuation Experts
The plaintiff sued for breach of contracts relating to ProPharma’s offer to have Donnelly join the board in 2016 and for not paying him for his incentive equity shares, implemented in 2017, at fair market value. Each side engaged an experienced business valuation expert to opine as to the fair market value of the equity shares. Each side now moved to exclude the testimony of the other side’s expert. The U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware denied the motions of both sides and allowed both experts to testify.
Endless River Techs. LLC v. Trans Union LLC
The plaintiff sued for damages in relation to termination of a contract requiring the plaintiff to develop software for use by the defendant in comparing real-time online insurance quotes insurers give to their customers. The defendant terminated the contract and admittedly breached the contract. A jury awarded the plaintiff $18.3 million in damages relating to the breach. However, the contract between the plaintiff and the defendant had a liability limiting clause, which prohibited recovery of “consequential damages.” After reviewing motions by the parties, the judge sided with the defendant in determining that the damages awarded were “consequential damages” and not “direct damages” and were not allowed under the contract between the parties.
U.S. District Court Overturns Jury Award for Consequential Damages
The plaintiff sued for damages in relation to termination of a contract requiring the plaintiff to develop software for use by the defendant in comparing real-time online insurance quotes insurers give to their customers. The defendant terminated the contract and admittedly breached the contract. A jury awarded the plaintiff $18.3 million in damages relating to the breach. However, the contract between the plaintiff and the defendant had a liability limiting clause, which prohibited recovery of “consequential damages.” After reviewing motions by the parties, the judge sided with the defendant in determining that the damages awarded were “consequential damages” and not “direct damages” and were not allowed under the contract between the parties.
Jayawardena v. Daka
This case involved a shareholder dispute among four shareholders of a physician practice (Ferncreek Cardiology PA) and two real estate LLCs. There were buy-sell provisions for each of the three entities. As to Ferncreek, the buy-sell provision was essentially an increase in book value provision, as the regular account determined in “good faith.” Payment provisions were also included in the agreement. The two real estate LLCs had a buy-sell provision that provided for either a single agreed-upon appraiser or three appraisers if no agreement was made. The plaintiff made the decision to exit the practice, triggering the buy-sell provisions. The parties were not able to agree on certain provisions as they worked through the buy-sell agreements. The trial court entered partial summary judgments on some claims of both parties. This appeal dealt with these partial summary judgments and was filed by the plaintiff.
North Carolina Appeals Court Affirms Decisions on Value of Businesses Under Buy-Sell Agreements
This case involved a shareholder dispute among four shareholders of a physician practice (Ferncreek Cardiology PA) and two real estate LLCs. There were buy-sell provisions for each of the three entities. As to Ferncreek, the buy-sell provision was essentially an increase in book value provision, as the regular account determined in “good faith.” Payment provisions were also included in the agreement. The two real estate LLCs had a buy-sell provision that provided for either a single agreed-upon appraiser or three appraisers if no agreement was made. The plaintiff made the decision to exit the practice, triggering the buy-sell provisions. The parties were not able to agree on certain provisions as they worked through the buy-sell agreements. The trial court entered partial summary judgments on some claims of both parties. This appeal dealt with these partial summary judgments and was filed by the plaintiff.
Mekhaya v. Eastland Food Corp.
The plaintiff pleaded a statutory claim for shareholder oppression. In October 2018, Mekhaya was fired from his position at Eastland, where his salary of $400,000 per year included an implied dividend. The implied dividend was also included in the salaries of the other shareholders, all relatives of Mekhaya. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss, which the district court granted. The plaintiff appealed. He noted that, after his removal, they paid themselves excessively high salaries and refused to pay him dividends, thus frustrating his expectations as a shareholder. The Appellate Court of Maryland disagreed with the decision of the trial court.
Maryland Court of Appeals Reverses Dismissal of an Oppression Claim—Finds There Could Be Disguised Dividend Issue
The plantiff pleaded a statutory claim for shareholder oppression. In October 2018, Mekhaya was fired from his position at Eastland, where his salary of $400,000 per year included an implied dividend. The implied dividend was also included in the salaries of the other shareholders, all relatives of Mekhaya. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss, which the district court granted. The plaintiff appealed. He noted that, after his removal, they paid themselves excessively high salaries and refused to pay him dividends, thus frustrating his expectations as a shareholder. The Appellate Court of Maryland disagreed with the decision of the trial court.
Delaware Court Grants in Some Cases and Denies in Others Motions to Exclude Expert Witnesses and Certain Evidence to Be Presented
In this ongoing case regarding investment banking services and fees, the court ruled on various motions of the parties to exclude certain testimony from two expert witnesses, one from each side, and to exclude certain evidence to be presented by those witnesses. The court denied the plaintiff’s motions but granted the defendant’s motions.
LCT Capital, LLC v. NGL Energy Partners LP
In this ongoing case regarding investment banking services and fees, the court ruled on various motions of the parties to exclude certain testimony from two expert witnesses, one from each side, and to exclude certain evidence to be presented by those witnesses. The court denied the plaintiff’s motions but granted the defendant’s motions.
Dentists Ins. Co. v. Yousefian
The plaintiff insurance company in this damages case waived work product protection when the plaintiff’s expert disclosed alleged “secret” information to the defendant’s expert. The court required disclosure.
Plaintiff’s Expert Waives Work Product Protection
The plaintiff insurance company in this damages case waived work product protection when the plaintiff’s expert disclosed alleged “secret” information to the defendant’s expert. The court required disclosure.
U.S. Appellate Court Rules Sufficient Evidence to Support Future Damages
In this partnership dispute, the 11th Circuit U.S. Appellate Court affirmed the district court and ruled that trial testimony of witnesses provided specific evidence that an energy utility company needed technicians the partnership provided before the disassociation and was not likely to change in the future. Damages were deemed “reasonably certain.” The defendants’ argument that, without an equitable accounting, the damages were too speculative, was waived because it was first raised post-verdict.