BVResearch Pro
Stay appraised of all the latest business considerations in the jewelry industry! The report explains how jewelry stores operate, the nature of their revenue streams, value drivers, the industry environment, the risks involved, and other key factors.
Search Tips Expand the following panels for additional search options.
Court Affirms Violation of ERISA but Allows Offset of Debt Forgiveness in Determining Damages
This case covered the appellate decisions regarding the well-publicized Vinoskey ESOP case. The appellate court affirmed the district court in deciding that the company owner had extensive knowledge about the company and its prior valuations, and thus it was plausible to infer that “something was off.” There was no clear error in the district court finding that the owner violated ERISA. The appellate court also allowed an offset to damages for the debt the owner forgave.
Guttman v. Guttman
The one-third partner of a real estate partnership, Bruce Guttman (Bruce), sued for dissolution. The two majority partners initiated a statutory procedure to buy out Bruce. All three appraisals were very close to $38 million. Feeling the valuations to be too low, Bruce sought to withdraw his complaint without prejudice. The trial court, on a motion from the majority partners, vacated Bruce’s dismissal. The appellate court affirmed the trial court.
One-Third Partner Sued to Have Partnership Dissolved, Asked to Vacate His Dissolution Assertion
The one-third partner of a real estate partnership, Bruce Guttman (Bruce), sued for dissolution. The two majority partners initiated a statutory procedure to buy out Bruce. All three appraisals were very close to $38 million. Feeling the valuations to be too low, Bruce sought to withdraw his complaint without prejudice. The trial court, on a motion from the majority partners, vacated Bruce’s dismissal. The appellate court affirmed the trial court.
Court Affirms Exclusion of Testimony From Witness as Being Based on Inadmissible Hearsay Evidence
The plaintiffs contended that the trial court erred in granting two defendants motions in limine to exclude evidence of the plaintiffs’ damages. The appellate court affirmed the decisions of the trial court.
HMH Enters. v. TAG Enters.
The plaintiffs contended that the trial court erred in granting two defendants motions in limine to exclude evidence of the plaintiffs’ damages. The appellate court affirmed the decisions of the trial court.
Collins v. Tabs Motors of Valley Stream Corp.
In this New York business divorce case, the court held that the shareholders agreement was enforceable, as well as the stipulated value of the buyout price as determined in Schedule B of the shareholders agreement. Claims by petitioners of breach of fiduciary duty and related claims, including a years-old certificate of value, were not sufficient to overcome the unambiguous terms of the buy-sell agreement.
In a New York Business Divorce, a Petition for Dissolution Triggers Buy-Sell Agreements
In this New York business divorce case, the court held that the shareholders agreement was enforceable, as well as the stipulated value of the buyout price as determined in Schedule B of the shareholders agreement. Claims by petitioners of breach of fiduciary duty and related claims, including a years-old certificate of value, were not sufficient to overcome the unambiguous terms of the buy-sell agreement.
Appeals Court Decides Trial Court Abused Its Discretion in Choosing the Method of Determining Damages
In this case alleging damages to a soybean crop, a Louisiana court of appeals determined that the trial court abused its discretion when it chose an expert's methodology for calculating damages, as another methodology was supported by the record and was not overly speculative; a reduced damage award was appropriate. The trial court affirmed two other issues regarding evidence of cause of damages and the issue of standing as to who owned the land and thus the crops.
Dettenhaim Farms, Inc. v. Greenpoint Ag, LLC
In this case alleging damages to a soybean crop, a Louisiana court of appeals determined that the trial court abused its discretion when it chose an expert's methodology for calculating damages, as another methodology was supported by the record and was not overly speculative; a reduced damage award was appropriate. The trial court affirmed two other issues regarding evidence of cause of damages and the issue of standing as to who owned the land and thus the crops.
Court Reverses Its Order to Strike Expert Testimony That Utilized the Discounted Cash Flow Method in Valuing a Business
This case was a motion to reconsider the court’s ruling that struck expert testimony because the expert used the discounted cash flow method to determine the value of a business that went out of business. Upon reconsideration, the court decided that such method was allowable in this case and, therefore, the testimony should be reinstated and presented to the jury for use in determining damages.
V5 Techs., LLC v. Switch, Ltd.
This case was a motion to reconsider the court’s ruling that struck expert testimony because the expert used the discounted cash flow method to determine the value of a business that went out of business. Upon reconsideration, the court decided that such method was allowable in this case and, therefore, the testimony should be reinstated and presented to the jury for use in determining damages.
Nelson v Commr.
Taxpayer appealed a Tax Court ruling that she gifted a percentage of partnership interests and not a fixed amount of value. As a result, when the IRS determined the FMV of those interests, the Taxpayer was left with a gift tax deficiency.
Court of Appeals Upholds Tax Court—Taxpayer Gifted a Percentage of Partnership Interests, Not a Fixed Amount
Taxpayer appealed a Tax Court ruling that she gifted a percentage of partnership interests and not a fixed amount of value. As a result, when the IRS determined the FMV of those interests, the Taxpayer was left with a gift tax deficiency.
Court Denies Motion to Exclude Rebuttal Testimony of Damages
This case concerned the purchase of a historic steam plant in downtown St. Louis. The claims included breach of contract, fraudulent conveyance, and tortious interference, among others. This particular case dealt with a motion in limine to exclude rebuttal testimony from the expert for the counterclaim defendants regarding damages put forth by the counterclaim plaintiffs. The court denied the motion.
SL EC, LLC v. Ashley Energy, LLC
This case concerned the purchase of a historic steam plant in downtown St. Louis. The claims included breach of contract, fraudulent conveyance, and tortious interference, among others. This particular case dealt with a motion in limine to exclude rebuttal testimony from the expert for the counterclaim defendants regarding damages put forth by the counterclaim plaintiffs. The court denied the motion.
Court Affirms Inclusion of Personal Goodwill in Marital Estate, Decides Trial Court Erred in Granting a Judgment Against Husband’s Business
In this divorce case, the Supreme Court of Wyoming allowed the valuation of the husband’s business, which likely included personal goodwill. It also decided that the district court did not abuse its discretion when it valued the husband’s business or ordered him to make an equalization payment. However, the district court erred in granting a judgment against the husband’s business for the equity payment due the wife since the business was not a party to the divorce action.
Snyder v. Snyder
In this divorce case, the Supreme Court of Wyoming allowed the valuation of the husband’s business, which likely included personal goodwill. It also decided that the district court did not abuse its discretion when it valued the husband’s business or ordered him to make an equalization payment. However, the district court erred in granting a judgment against the husband’s business for the equity payment due the wife since the business was not a party to the divorce action.
State Route 00700, Section 21H v. Bentleyville Garden Inn, Inc. (In re Condemnation by DOT)
The jury verdict was set aside in this Pennsylvania condemnation case for reliance on an incompetent report by the expert witness for the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation. The report did not account for the damages the hotel incurred on the unclaimed property for loss of business due to the condemned property. Additionally, the court decided that a new trial, which the trial court did not allow, should be allowed and remanded for a new trial.
Verdict Based on an Expert’s Incompetent Report Cannot Stand, New Trial Ordered
The jury verdict was set aside in this Pennsylvania condemnation case for reliance on an incompetent report by the expert witness for the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation. The report did not account for the damages the hotel incurred on the unclaimed property for loss of business due to the condemned property. Additionally, the court decided that a new trial, which the trial court did not allow, should be allowed and remanded for a new trial.
Paganelli v. Lovelace
This case resulted in the court issuing a partial summary judgment in favor of the defendant (and counterclaimant) in a matter regarding a sale/purchase contract between the plaintiff and the defendant. The cross-allegations resulted from the defendant allegedly breaching the purchase contract, while the defendant alleged that the plaintiff first breached the contract and committed fraud in entering into the contract.
Court Issues Partial Summary Judgment in Favor of Party Alleging Breach of Contract
This case resulted in the court issuing a partial summary judgment in favor of the defendant (and counterclaimant) in a matter regarding a sale/purchase contract between the plaintiff and the defendant. The cross-allegations resulted from the defendant allegedly breaching the purchase contract, while the defendant alleged that the plaintiff first breached the contract and committed fraud in entering into the contract.
Yaquinto v. Thompson St. Capital Partners (In re Stone Panels, Inc.)
Trustee argued that a cash transfer by debtor was a constructively fraudulent transfer under the bankruptcy code. The Trustee was able to show that the transaction was an interest in property for which debtor did not receive reasonably equivalent value. The Trustee was not able to show that the debtor was insolvent at the date of the transfer or became insolvent as a result of the transfer. The debtor was engaged in a business for which the property remaining was sufficiently capitalized. It appeared that the debtor would have sufficient access to cash to service its obligations and operate its business in a sustainable way. The Trustee failed in its burden of proof.
Property Transfer Was Not Fraudulent Because Debtor Was Not Insolvent
Trustee argued that a cash transfer by debtor was a constructively fraudulent transfer under the bankruptcy code. The Trustee was able to show that the transaction was an interest in property for which debtor did not receive reasonably equivalent value. The Trustee was not able to show that the debtor was insolvent at the date of the transfer or became insolvent as a result of the transfer. The debtor was engaged in a business for which the property remaining was sufficiently capitalized. It appeared that the debtor would have sufficient access to cash to service its obligations and operate its business in a sustainable way. The Trustee failed in its burden of proof.
Mohen v. Mohen
In the trial court (TC), the wife was awarded $4,360,158 of mostly unaccrued interest on the corpus of trusts the husband set up unilaterally for the children. The TC took the value of those trusts, $9,291,372, as part of the marital estate. The TC also added $990,945 of interest that the trusts had received and the remaining unaccrued future interest for a total value of “distribution” paid to the husband of $14,642,475 related to the trusts. The appellate court (AC) determined that the future interest was future interest and, thus, not part of the marital estate. However, the AC let stand the determination that the value of the trusts were to be treated as a distribution to the husband.
Husband Dissipates Assets by Placing Them in Trusts for the Children, but the Appellate Court Does Not Allow Unaccrued Interest
In the trial court (TC), the wife was awarded $4,360,158 of mostly unaccrued interest on the corpus of trusts the husband set up unilaterally for the children. The TC took the value of those trusts, $9,291,372, as part of the marital estate. The TC also added $990,945 of interest that the trusts had received and the remaining unaccrued future interest for a total value of “distribution” paid to the husband of $14,642,475 related to the trusts. The appellate court (AC) determined that the future interest was future interest and, thus, not part of the marital estate. However, the AC let stand the determination that the value of the trusts were to be treated as a distribution to the husband.