The plaintiffs’ business was allegedly damaged by the actions of the defendant. The plaintiffs engaged an expert in economic damages and lost profits. The defendants engaged their own expert to provide his opinions as to why he believed the plaintiffs’ expert’s opinions were unreliable. The court ultimately excluded this portion of the defendants’ expert’s testimony.
View Case Digest View CaseGavrielidis v. 80 Seaview Ave., LLC
In this dispute among siblings owning restaurants in Connecticut, the court determined that there was no oppression against one of the siblings whose employment was terminated and there were no wrongful acts. The court determined the fair market value of the plaintiff’s membership interests but denied discounts for lack of control and lack of marketability.
In a Siblings Ownership Dispute, Court Decides No Oppression and No Sums Owed by the Plaintiff, Determines the Value of the Plaintiff’s 25% Interest
In this dispute among siblings owning restaurants in Connecticut, the court determined that there was no oppression against one of the siblings whose employment was terminated and there were no wrongful acts. The court determined the fair market value of the plaintiff’s membership interests but denied discounts for lack of control and lack of marketability.