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
Buckley v. Carlock
The Tennessee appellate court affirmed the Chancery Court’s determination of the value of an oppressed minority shareholder’s interest in an “ultra-high-end” car dealership. The valuation of an expert utilized the “blue sky method,” a rule of thumb method, to value the dealership and ultimately the minority interest. The Chancery Court conducted a hearing on which it heard valuation expert testimony. The appellate court affirmed the Chancery Court’s valuation and its methodology since it was generally accepted by the financial community.
Bates v. Bates
In appreciation case, appeals court says it was error to value owner’s separate, minority interest in car dealership based on buy-sell agreement; however, alternate valuation by nonowner spouse’s expert offered based on standard methods, including use of discounts, provided “appropriate valuation.”
J&M Industries, Inc. v. Raven Industries, Inc.
Court admits most of damages expert’s reasonable royalty opinion, finding expert properly apportioned out value of nonpatented features in calculating royalty rate; expert’s use of industry-specific data from ktMINE database was reasonable and sufficiently tied to facts of the case, court says.
Magarik v Kraus
In buyout dispute, court rejects departing shareholder’s valuation based on income and market approach, where DCF model relied on company projections used for a bank loan that were never realized and, based on evidence, were “not accurate”; court says market approach used “incorrect comparables.”
Telfer v. Telfer
In context of determining appreciation in value, appeals court says trial court did not err when it applied DLOM in valuing partial interests in businesses representing wife’s separate property; DLOM use is within trial court’s discretion and depends on facts of the case.
Tennessee Appeals Court Defers to Trial Court on DLOM Use in Divorce
In context of determining appreciation in value, appeals court says trial court did not err when it applied DLOM in valuing partial interests in businesses representing wife’s separate property; DLOM use is within trial court’s discretion and depends on facts of the case.