Expand the following panels for additional search options.

Delaware Chancery Case on Shareholder Dissent Likely to Raise Eyebrows

A practitioner’s commentary on the Cellular case focuses on the tax-affecting issues in the case.

Cellular Telephone: An Interesting Decision for Valuation Practitioners

A recent Delaware decision in a breach of fiduciary duty case awarded more than triple the amount originally paid to partners who were squeezed out of their collective 1.881% interest in a partnership. Several aspects of this decision are of particular interest to valuation practitioners, especially those whose practice includes litigation services. The case is: In Re Cellular Tel. P’ship Litig.; 2022 Del. Ch. LEXIS 56 (Cellular).

Appeals court affirms modified liquidation value in shareholder dispute

In a Michigan shareholder deadlock case, a special master recommended that a sale of shares from one shareholder to the other would yield more value than if the company were dissolved.

No deduction for tax in shareholder buyout

In a North Dakota partnership dissolution case, the defendants argued on appeal that the district court erred in its valuation.

New Jersey Appellate Court Affirms Valuation of Shopping Mall, Disallows Any Control or Marketability Discounts, Affirms Proper Dissociation by Plaintiffs

This case was a partnership dispute where the defendant partners tried to buy out the plaintiff partners. On appeal before the New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division, the defendants argued that the plaintiffs’ dissociation was wrongful and damages should be assessed, discounts for lack of control and marketability should be applied to the value, and the partnership value should be reduced to account for partnership outstanding debts and other amounts. The plaintiffs argued that the trial court erred by relying on the defendants’ expert’s report and not their expert’s report, refusing to increase the value by personal loans taken by the defendant partners, and failing to find that the partnership overpaid management and accounting fees. The appellate court affirmed the trial court with one exception, whether the partnership agreement disassociated properly. On that count, the appellate court determined that the disassociation was appropriate.

Robertson v. Hyde Park

This case was a partnership dispute where the defendant partners tried to buy out the plaintiff partners. On appeal before the New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division, the defendants argued that the plaintiffs’ dissociation was wrongful and damages should be assessed, discounts for lack of control and marketability should be applied to the value, and the partnership value should be reduced to account for partnership outstanding debts and other amounts. The plaintiffs argued that the trial court erred by relying on the defendants’ expert’s report and not their expert’s report, refusing to increase the value by personal loans taken by the defendant partners, and failing to find that the partnership overpaid management and accounting fees. The appellate court affirmed the trial court with one exception, whether the partnership agreement disassociated properly. On that count, the appellate court determined that the disassociation was appropriate.

Michigan Appeals Court Affirms Modified-Liquidation Value in a Shareholder Deadlock Litigation

In this shareholder deadlock litigation, the appellate court affirmed the decision of the trial court that the solution to the deadlock was to order a buyout of the plaintiffs’ stock by the defendants as opposed to a dissolution of the company. The appellate court also affirmed the use of a modified-liquidation value as providing a value that maximized the value to the individual shareholders.

Pitsch v Pitsch Holding Co.

In this shareholder deadlock litigation, the appellate court affirmed the decision of the trial court that the solution to the deadlock was to order a buyout of the plaintiffs’ stock by the defendants as opposed to a dissolution of the company. The appellate court also affirmed the use of a modified-liquidation value as providing a value that maximized the value to the individual shareholders.

Delaware Chancery rejects partnership valuation in a freeze-out

In a coordinated action involving 13 partnerships that were involved in freeze-out transactions by AT&T of minority shareholders, the court found that AT&T breached its fiduciary duties and effectuated the freeze-out through an unfair process and by paying an unfair price.

Court tweaks blue-sky method in valuing a car dealer

A Tennessee appellate court recently considered the Chancery Court’s determination of the value of an oppressed minority shareholder’s interest in an “ultra-high-end” car dealership.

No valuation adjustment for alleged acts of oppression

In a Connecticut case, four siblings were partners in a number of restaurant properties and one of the partners (who had a 25% interest) was ousted by the others.

Sproule v. Johnson

In this partnership dissolution case, the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s decision to use an appraisal of the Canadian entity as of 2019 instead of a value from an earlier agreement in principal. The later date was within the purview of the district court’s flexibility. Further, the Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s decision not to reduce the value of a partnership asset of stock in a Canadian corporation for taxes.

North Dakota Supreme Court Affirms Valuation Date, Affirms No Deduction for Taxes in Determining Stock Value

In this partnership dissolution case, the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s decision to use an appraisal of the Canadian entity as of 2019 instead of a value from an earlier agreement in principal. The later date was within the purview of the district court’s flexibility. Further, the Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s decision not to reduce the value of a partnership asset of stock in a Canadian corporation for taxes.

In Re Cellular Tel. P’ship Litig.

In this coordinated action involving 13 partnerships that were involved in freeze-out transactions by AT&T of minority shareholders, AT&T breached its fiduciary duties and effectuated the freeze-out through an unfair process and by paying an unfair price. The freeze-out was subject to the entire fairness standard of review. AT&T bore the burden of proving that the freeze-out was entirely fair to the minority partners. AT&T failed in that proof and thereby sought to capture future value for itself. AT&T did not employ any procedures that insured fairness to the minority partners. The lead partner of the valuation firm had a long-standing relationship with AT&T, and internal AT&T personnel influenced the outcome of the valuation. The court determined the fair value of the interest as a remedy to the situation.

Delaware Chancery Court Rejects Partnership Valuation in a Freeze-Out as Unfair to Minority Partners

In this coordinated action involving 13 partnerships that were involved in freeze-out transactions by AT&T of minority shareholders, AT&T breached its fiduciary duties and effectuated the freeze-out through an unfair process and by paying an unfair price. The freeze-out was subject to the entire fairness standard of review. AT&T bore the burden of proving that the freeze-out was entirely fair to the minority partners. AT&T failed in that proof and thereby sought to capture future value for itself. AT&T did not employ any procedures that insured fairness to the minority partners. The lead partner of the valuation firm had a long-standing relationship with AT&T, and internal AT&T personnel influenced the outcome of the valuation. The court determined the fair value of the interest as a remedy to the situation.

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.

Appellate Court Affirms Use of the ‘Blue Sky Method,’ a Rule of Thumb, to Value a Minority Interest in an Oppression Case

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.

Appellate court KOs discount for trapped-in capital gains taxes

In a Louisiana case, a dissenting shareholder was withdrawing her shares in a company and the valuation of her interest was in dispute, so a trial was held.

Bohac v. Benes Serv. Co.

The Nebraska District Court in this case applied discounts to its determination of fair value (FV). The Supreme Court found that the district court did not use the correct definition of fair value, resulting in discounts being applied to the estate’s shares. The Supreme Court also found that the proper premise of value was going concern and the proper methodology for value was the asset approach. The Supreme Court also allowed as a liability the deferred tax on potential future sale of assets by the corporation.

The Nebraska District Court Is Reversed in Its Determination of Fair Value

The Nebraska District Court in this case applied discounts to its determination of fair value (FV). The Supreme Court found that the district court did not use the correct definition of fair value, resulting in discounts being applied to the estate’s shares. The Supreme Court also found that the proper premise of value was going concern and the proper methodology for value was the asset approach. The Supreme Court also allowed as a liability the deferred tax on potential future sale of assets by the corporation.

ShopRite, Inc. v. Gardiner

In determining the fair value of a minority interest in stock sold back to the companies in a shareholder oppression assertion, the Louisiana Court of Appeals rejected a discount for trapped-in capital gains tax since the companies had no intention of selling the properties owned. The appeals court also disallowed a reduction in fair value related to the value of affiliated accounts receivable, noting that there was no evidence that the receivables were uncollectible.

Louisiana Court of Appeals Disallows a Discount for Trapped-In Capital Gains Taxes and a Reduction in Receivables for Collectability

In determining the fair value of a minority interest in stock sold back to the companies in a shareholder oppression assertion, the Louisiana Court of Appeals rejected a discount for trapped-in capital gains tax since the companies had no intention of selling the properties owned. The appeals court also disallowed a reduction in fair value related to the value of affiliated accounts receivable, noting that there was no evidence that the receivables were uncollectible.

Cheng v. Coastal Lb Assocs.

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 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.

Pourmoradi v. Gabbai

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.

1 - 25 of 562 results