Koch v. Koch
This shareholder dispute case involved two businesses three brothers in Minnesota owned. One of the brothers, Jim Koch, had a falling out with the other two, Randy and Dave Koch. A temporary agreement was made among them in 2006, but subsequently the relationship and actions of the parties deteriorated. In particular, an IRS audit of the two businesses triggered a disagreement as to whether required payments under the agreement had to be tax deductible. Certain actions by the defendants breached the 2006 agreement as determined by a jury resulting in a damages award of $12 million. The court then held a bench trial to determine the value of the two businesses for determining the buyout amount for Jim’s interest in both businesses. Experts for each side testified as to value. The opinion provided a good analysis of the various issues in the methodologies each of the experts used.
Minority Shareholder Receives Award of $12 Million for Breach of Contract, $58 Million Buyout Award for Minority Interest
This shareholder dispute case involved two businesses three brothers in Minnesota owned. One of the brothers, Jim Koch, had a falling out with the other two, Randy and Dave Koch. A temporary agreement was made among them in 2006, but subsequently the relationship and actions of the parties deteriorated. In particular, an IRS audit of the two businesses triggered a disagreement as to whether required payments under the agreement had to be tax deductible. Certain actions by the defendants breached the 2006 agreement as determined by a jury resulting in a damages award of $12 million. The court then held a bench trial to determine the value of the two businesses for determining the buyout amount for Jim’s interest in both businesses. Experts for each side testified as to value. The opinion provided a good analysis of the various issues in the methodologies each of the experts used.
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.
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.
Recap of recent BV cases of note
A number of recent cases have emerged that contain various valuation issues.
Island Light & Power Co. v. Sara Golvinveaux McGinnes 2011 Trust
In this shareholder dissent suit, the one-third shareholder of Island Light & Power Co. (aka BIPCO) dissented to a forced sale of the assets of BIPCO resulting in a liquidation of BIPCO and of the shareholder Trust’s stock. In a resulting bench trial, the court rejected the fair value determinations of the experts for both parties and adopted its own methodology (as is allowed by Rhode Island courts, including its Supreme Court) to determine the fair value of the one-third interest held by the Trust.
Court Adopts its Own Methodology in Determining Fair Value in a Shareholder Dissent Suit
In this shareholder dissent suit in Rhode Island, the one-third shareholder of Island Light & Power Co. (aka BIPCO) dissented to a forced sale of the assets of BIPCO resulting in a liquidation of BIPCO and a liquidation of the shareholder Trust’s stock. In a bench trial resulting from the dissent, the court rejected the fair value determinations of the experts for both parties and adopted its own methodology (as is allowed by Rhode Island courts, including its Supreme Court) to determine the fair value of the one-third interest held by the Trust.
Court of Chancery adopts deal price, adjusting for synergies and tax savings
In a statutory appraisal action, the Delaware Court of Chancery recently adopted the deal price minus synergies as the best indicator of fair value.
In re Appraisal of Regal Entertainment Group
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.
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.