Fair Value Determination Remanded Due to Lack of Evidence
In this dispute over the valuation of closely held corporation stock, the appellate court reversed and remanded the trial court's valuation of the corporation.
Torres v. Schripps, Inc.
At issue is the value and date of valuation of the shares of stock of Schripps, a closely held corporation.
Fair Value in Oregon Shareholder Oppression Case Is Undiscounted Pro Rata Share of Going Concern Value
Plaintiff brought this action under the Oregon dissenters' rights statute, claiming oppressive conduct of the majority shareholders and requesting judicial dissolution of the subject company.
In re Penepent Corp.
At issue is the fair value of sharelholder's stock in Penepent Corporation after death.
New York's Highest Court Addresses Election and Valuation Issues in Freeze-Out Case
In 1979, New York enacted legislation authorizing judicial dissolution proceedings by oppressed minority shareholders of closely held corporations.
A. Teixeira & Company, Inc. v. Antonio L. Teixeira, et al.
The Rhode Island Superior Court determined that the discounts for minority interest and lack of marketability should not be applied to the value of stock in a retail liquor store even though the minority shareholders brought the action for corporate disso ...
Fair Value Determined Without Minority Discount
The Rhode Island Superior Court determined that the discounts for minority interest and lack of marketability should not be applied to the value of stock in a retail liquor store even though the minority shareholders brought the action for corporate dissolution.
Hayes v. Olmsted & Assoc.
Issues were whether majority's conduct toward minority stockholder was oppressive, the proper method of valuing minority's stock, and value of stock.
Value Under Shareholders’ Agreement Is Not Fair Value
The Oregon Court of Appeals considered the fair value of a minority interest in a food brokerage business in this oppressed shareholder case.
Distinction Between 50% and Minority Shareholder Immaterial
This is an appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, in which appellant Dan Hill sought to overrule the District Court's ruling that he should buy out appellee James Hollis' 50% interest in First Financial USA Inc. (FFUSA).
Sheldon Robbins, M.D. v. Salem Rdiology, et al.
The New Hampshire Supreme Court reversed the lower court's decision to value a voluntary withdrawing partner's interest under the Uniform Partnership Act. It found that while a voluntary departing partner's interest may be valued under the act absent agr ...
Voluntary Withdrawing Partner’s Interest Valued Under the Partnership Agreement
The New Hampshire Supreme Court reversed the lower court's decision to value a voluntary withdrawing partner's interest under the Uniform Partnership Act.
Hollis v. Hill
At issue is breach of fiduciary duty by the defendant for ordering a buy-out of the plaintiff's shares based on their corporation's value more than one year prior to the date of judgment.
Distinction Between 'Equal' and 'Minority' Immaterial
This is an appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, in which appellant Dan Hill sought to overrule the District Court's ruling that he should buy out appellee James Hollis' 50% interest in First Financial USA Inc. (FFUSA).
Valuation Date Is the Date of Filing
The 5th Circuit determined that, under Nevada corporate law, shareholders in a closely held company financial services company have a fiduciary duty to each other.
Matter of Wolk v. Vetco, Inc.
The New York Supreme Court valued an over the counter pharmaceutical company for a buyout under BCL sec 1118. The court rejected valuations using the liquidation and analytic pricing models, and accepted a valuation of the business using the capitalizatio ...
Illiquidity Discount Applied in Addition to Company-Specific Risk Adjustment in the Capitalization Rate
The New York Supreme Court valued an over-the-counter pharmaceutical company for a buyout under BCL sec 1118.
Thomas E. Leech v. Robert M. Leech
The Pennsylvania Superior Court concluded that an action for shareholder oppression could be brought when the shareholders hold equal interests in the business.
50% Shareholder May Be Oppressed
The Pennsylvania Superior Court concluded that an action for shareholder oppression could be brought when the shareholders hold equal interests in the business.
Extraordinary Circumstances Warrant Marketability Discount in Buyout
In November 1999, the Minnesota Court of Appeals ruled, in a case of first impression in Minnesota, that a marketability discount should not be applied to determine the fair value of Brian Follett's one-third interest in Advanced Communication Design Inc. (ACD).
Going-Concern Value, Not Liquidation Value, Comports With Fair Value
One of the issues in this shareholder oppression action was the valuation of plaintiff Terry J. Cooke's 25% interest in Fresh Express Foods Corporation Inc., a closely held Subchapter S corporation.
Christians v. Universal Nurses of Houston, Inc.
Issue is whether leases were entered into at less than fair value.
Verdict Reversed Due to Insufficient Evidence of Lease Values
In this combined minority oppression, breach of fiduciary duty, and shareholder derivative action, 20% shareholder Linda Stafford claimed that majority shareholders Linda Christians and Doug Christians inappropriately entered into furniture and equipment leases with Universal Nurses of Houston Inc. at less than fair value.
Application of Discounts in Valuing Usurpation Claim Was Error
This litigation involves two closely held corporations and one partnership.
No Discounts in Rhode Island Fair Value Determination
One of the issues in the corporate dissolution action was whether the trial court erred in refusing to apply a minority discount and a discount for lack of marketability when it valued plaintiff's 20% interest in the defendant corporation.