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
Washington State Appeals Court Adopts Rule on Entity Goodwill in Professional LLC
In dissolution dispute, appeals court affirms trial court’s finding, based on plaintiff expert testimony, that dissolved professional LLC had entity goodwill at trial based, in large part, on ownership of three leases and operation of offices that doctors could use upon termination of partnership.
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.
Chancery Relies on DCF Where Deal Process Is Not ‘Dell Compliant’
In statutory appraisal, court finds sales process was not “Dell compliant” and declines to assign any weight to deal price; court agrees with parties’ experts that DCF best captures fair value on valuation date and arrives at final value below deal price.
Tennessee Appeals Court Affirms Trial Court Decision on Spousal Support and on the Value of Husband’s Medical Practice
On appeal, the husband asked the court to review whether the wife needed alimony given the assets she otherwise received in the equitable distribution and her earning capacity as a pharmacist, whether an award of rehabilitative alimony and alimony in futuro by the trial court was appropriate, and whether the trial court’s valuation of the husband’s medical practice was in error. The appellate court affirmed the trial court in all aspects reviewed and did not award legal fees to either party.
Key Tax Ruling From Ohio Supreme Court Concerning Pass-Through Entity
Ohio Supreme Court says tax provision imposing state income tax on capital gain realized by nonresident investor in pass-through entity violates taxpayer’s due process rights barring showing taxpayer’s activities are “unitary with” those of the business.
Financial Advisor’s Fairness Opinion Not Materially Misleading
Court rejects dissenting shareholder’s proxy challenge, finding board member statements about management projections are protected under applicable act’s safe harbor provision; also, court says financial advisor’s fairness opinion did not double count for risk in underlying DCF analysis.
Court Adopts Taxpayer Expert’s Method to Value Unlisted Stock of ‘Severely Distressed’ Company
In tax case, court approves refund, finding value of unlisted stock in distressed closely held company that taxpayer received as part of a settlement was less than stated in settlement agreement; taxpayer’s expert showed market value approach was only suitable method to calculate fair market value.
Divided Court Addresses Issue of Appreciation of Gifted Property
Divided appeals court upholds decision not to award any part of appreciation in separate gifted stock to nonowner spouse; dissent says length of marriage and contributions by wife, regardless of their nature, support equal division of stock appreciation.
Tennessee Sticks With Delaware Block Method in Judicial Appraisals
Appeals court says trial court followed applicable law when it used Delaware block method to determine fair value of dissenting shareholders’ interests; court declines to change law on valuation, saying reversal must come from state Supreme Court.
In COVID-19 Business Interruption Case, Court Finds Business Cannot Show Insurer’s Coverage Denial Breached Contract
In business interruption case resulting from mandatory shutdowns to control COVID-19, court finds plaintiff chiropractic clinic failed to show insurer breached its policy; court says plaintiff did not demonstrate “tangible damage” to property and failed to overcome policy’s express virus exclusion.
High Court Says Context Supports Use of Discounts in Buyout From Shareholder Oppression
State high court upholds trial court’s use of DLOM and minority discount in buyout of minority interest resulting from shareholder oppression; court says there is no “fixed set of factors” trial court must consider for fair value calculation; “context is crucial” and here justified discounts.
California Appellate Court Remands for Application of Trial Court of Wrong Standard of Value Denying Discounts
This California appellate case reviewed the trial court’s decision that discounts for lack of control and lack of marketability were not appropriate in determining the value to be paid to the plaintiffs in this corporate dissolution case where the remaining 50% owners exercised their right to purchase the plaintiff’s 50% interest in the LLC.
Lacking Any Wholly Reliable Indicators of Fair Value, Court Adopts Respondent's DCF Model
In appraisal action arising out of controller's buyout of minority stockholders, court finds there is no reliable market evidence as to target's fair value on merger date; none of expert valuations are "wholly reliable," but one expert's DCF analysis offers a "proportionately reliable conclusion."
Persuasive’ Defense Expert Testimony Defeats ESOP Overpayment Claims
Court says defense expert opinion provides “credible and persuasive” support for court’s conclusion that ESOP financial advisor produced sound fairness and valuation opinions prior to contested transaction; there was no overpayment for stock at issue.
In Appraisal Action, Court Determines Fair Value Using Deal Price Minus Synergies and Adjusting for Increase in Value From Signing to Closing of Merger
In a merger action involving a publicly traded company, dissenting shareholders sued for a higher value than the deal consideration. Under the applicable appraisal jurisprudence, the court calculates fair value using the deal price minus synergies and adjusting for the change in value of the target between the signing and closing of the transaction.
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.
Court Denies a Partial Motion by Defendant to Dismiss Claims of Unjust Enrichment and Tortious Interference With Business Relations
In this civil action, the defendant/counterclaim plaintiff (Kubient) filed a partial motion to dismiss the claims of unjust enrichment and tortious interference with business relations by the plaintiff/counterdefendant (Lo70s). The complaint showed that Kubient took actions not covered in the LOI, such as taking without permission the business and assets of Lo70s and persuading specific customers away from Lo70s and to Kubient. As a result of this and other actions of Kubient, the court did not allow a dismissal at this point in the process. The motions were denied.
California Court of Appeal Allows a Discount for Lack of Control in the Buyout of 25% Interests in an LLC
This case concerned the purchase of minority interests in a California limited liability company under the Corporate Code concerning the purchase of these interests in lieu of a liquidation of the company. The appellate court affirmed the trial court’s order confirming the purchase of these interests at a discounted fair market value.
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.
District Court Rules ‘Decisively’ Against the DOL in an ESOP Overvaluation Case
The Department of Labor sued the defendants, which included two individual owners, Bowers & Kubota Consulting Inc. and the Bowers & Kubota ESOP, alleging that the defendants had violated ERISA laws by manipulating data to induce the ESOP to pay $40 million for the shares of the individual shareholders that the DOL claimed was in excess of the fair market value of the shares. After extensive testimony of valuation experts and analysis of the facts of the case, the court determined that no ERISA violations have been established.
Trial Court’s Physician Practice Valuation Lacks Factual Basis
Goodwill, excess earnings method, market-based approach, capitalization rate, multiple, expert testimony, professional corporation, professional practice, valuation methods ...
Court Considers Deal Price Persuasive Indicator of Fair Value and Approves Synergy Deduction
In appraisal action involving sale of public company, court says sale process had “objective indicia of reliability,” justifying use of deal price for fair value determination; synergy deduction is appropriate to account for value from anticipated cost and tax-related savings due to merger.
The Delaware Chancery Court Erred in Dismissing Claims Regarding Appraisal Rights Disclosures in a Merger—Supreme Court Remands
Brookfield Property Partners Inc. acquired GGP Inc. in a merger transaction. During negotiations, Brookfield Property Partners LP expressed concern over the number of GGP stockholders who might see appraisal under Delaware law. Brookfield Property Partners suggested inserting an appraisal rights closing condition that allowed it to terminate the agreement if a specified number of GGP shares demanded appraisal. Brookfield Property Partners objected, and the condition was nixed. At the urging of Brookfield Property Partners, the merger was structured so that Brookfield funded a sizable preclosing dividend which was paid by GGP to eligible shareholders, followed by a small residual payment called a “per share merger consideration.” GGP stockholders were told they could exercise their appraisal rights solely in connection with the merger, set at $23.50 per share, in relation to the per-share merger consideration valued at $0.312 per share. Plaintiff stockholders claimed they were led to believe that a fair value determination would be limited to the value of the post-dividend of GGP. The Supreme Court agreed with the Chancery Court that the defendants did not unlawfully eliminate appraisal rights but disagreed that the proxy disclosures were sufficient.
Delaware Supreme Court Rebukes Chancery for Disregarding Deal Price
High Court rejects Chancery’s decision to disregard deal price entirely in favor of court’s DCF analysis; record belies Chancery’s finding that deal price undervalued company stock, High Court says, urging adoption of deal price as fair value on remand.
Valuation Underlying Controversial Stock Sale Satisfies Highest Scrutiny
In breach of fiduciary duty action, court says stock sale passes enhanced fairness review; appraiser valuing real estate investment services company before sale is eminently qualified and knowledgeable about industry; capitalized cash flow method “generated a reliable indicator” of company’s value.