Hardiman v. Woodlands Store, Inc.
This appeal in a California court involved a dispute over an appraisal of the plaintiffs’ 15% interest in a grocery store the defendant operated. The plaintiffs alleged that the award of the superior court was obtained by fraud and that the arbitrator prejudiced their rights. The appellate court found no basis for “disturbing” the appraisal-arbitration award.
Appellate Court (California) Declines to Set Aside Appraisal and Decision of Arbitrator
This appeal in a California court involved a dispute over an appraisal of the plaintiffs’ 15% interest in a grocery store the defendant operated. The plaintiffs alleged that the award of the superior court was obtained by fraud and that the arbitrator prejudiced their rights. The appellate court found no basis for “disturbing” the appraisal-arbitration award.
Delicatessens
This industry comprises establishments generally known as supermarkets and other grocery retailers (except convenience retailers) primarily engaged in retailing a general line of food, such as canned and frozen foods; fresh fruits and vegetables; and fresh and prepared meats, fish, and poultry. Included in this industry are delicatessen-type establishments primarily engaged in retailing a general line of food.
Supermarkets/Grocery Stores
This industry comprises establishments generally known as supermarkets and other grocery retailers (except convenience retailers) primarily engaged in retailing a general line of food, such as canned and frozen foods; fresh fruits and vegetables; and fresh and prepared meats, fish, and poultry. Included in this industry are delicatessen-type establishments primarily engaged in retailing a general line of food.
Sullivan v. Loden
In this malpractice case against an estate attorney, the attorney was denied a summary judgment. The primary issue related to the attorney’s valuation of stock of a family business that was gifted to two of the four children of the decedent. While an “equalization payment” was made to each of the two remaining children, one of these two sued the attorney for both breach of fiduciary duty and for undervaluing the stock gifted, resulting in an underpaid equalization payment.
Estate Attorney Is Denied a Summary Judgment for Alleged Incorrect Valuation of Gifts of Stock—Malpractice Case Proceeds
In this malpractice case against an estate attorney, the attorney was denied a summary judgment. The primary issue related to the attorney’s valuation of stock of a family business that was gifted to two of the four children of the decedent. While an “equalization payment” was made to each of the two remaining children, one of these two sued the attorney for both breach of fiduciary duty and for undervaluing the stock gifted, resulting in an underpaid equalization payment.
Lund v. Lund (II)
Appeals court upholds district court’s buyout order of minority shareholder’s interests in related family businesses (grocery store chain) as well as district court’s fair value determination; district court’s valuation “falls squarely” between trial experts’ valuations, appeals court says.
In Big Buyout Ruling, Minnesota Court Rejects DLOM in Calculating Fair Value
In a forced buyout, court says experts were too partisan to their clients, compromising value analysis; court performs its own valuation using DCF to determine fair value of grocery business and rejects DLOM because no unfair transfer of wealth occurs.
In Big Buyout Ruling, Minnesota Court Rejects DLOM in Calculating Fair Value
In a forced buyout, court says experts were too partisan to their clients, compromising value analysis; court performs its own valuation using DCF to determine fair value of grocery business and rejects DLOM because no unfair transfer of wealth occurs.
Lund v. Lund (I)
In a forced buyout, court says experts were too partisan to their clients, compromising value analysis; court performs its own valuation using DCF to determine fair value of grocery business and rejects DLOM because no unfair transfer of wealth occurs.
Court Excludes Pro Forma-Based Economic Damages Analysis
Court excludes plaintiffs’ DCF-based damages calculation, finding it suffers from “garbage-in, garbage-out” problem; plaintiffs’ experts based cash flow analysis on defendant’s preliminary projections rather than subsequently available actual sales data.
Damages Opinion Reveals ‘Serious Misconception’ of Role of Expert
Court excludes most of rebuttal opinion under Daubert, saying it is not “the product of reliable principles and methods” owing to expert’s “serious misconception of his role and misreading of the authorities he cites,” particularly with regard to causatio ...
Bruno v. Bozzuto’s, Inc.
Court excludes plaintiffs’ DCF-based damages calculation, finding it suffers from “garbage-in, garbage-out” problem; plaintiffs’ experts based cash flow analysis on defendant’s preliminary projections rather than subsequently available actual sales data.
Rowe v. DPI Specialty Foods
Court excludes most of rebuttal opinion under Daubert, saying it is not “the product of reliable principles and methods” owing to expert’s “serious misconception of his role and misreading of the authorities he cites,” particularly with regard to causatio ...
Court Affirms Rightness of Expert’s ‘Marital Value’ Calculation
Court upholds expert’s idiosyncratic valuation approach based on ascertaining “marital value” of community’s grocery stores as opposed to stores’ “investment value”; since the stores were not sold, valuation properly captured their value to owner spouse.
In re Honer
Court upholds expert’s idiosyncratic valuation approach based on ascertaining “marital value” of community’s grocery stores as opposed to stores’ “investment value”; since the stores were not sold, valuation properly captured their value to owner spouse.
Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc. v. Dolgencorp, LLC
Appeals court affirms Daubert exclusion of plaintiff's damages expert because she analyzed the wrong problem and her conclusion did not assist the trier of fact; also, her economic model and regression analysis failed to measure “effect of the violation.”
Bernier Trial Court Gets Tax Affecting Wrong Once Again
Massachusetts Court of Appeals remands the case—for the second time—to the trial court for an appropriate valuation of the parties’ S corporations, including a tax affecting according to the “Kessler metric” (adopted from the Delaware Chancery Court).
Bernier v. Bernier (II)
Massachusetts Court of Appeals remands the case—for the second time—to the trial court for an appropriate valuation of the parties’ S corporations, including a tax affecting according to the “Kessler metric” (adopted from the Delaware Chancery Court).
Second Post-Bernier Court Says Income Approach May Be Preferred, But Not Exclusive
Massachusetts court precludes discounts in valuing marital business in divorce, and says that while income approach is preferred, net asset value may be appropriate in the absence of determinable market value.
Palmerino v. Palmerino
Massachusetts court precludes discounts in valuing marital business in divorce, and says that while income approach is preferred, net asset value may be appropriate in the absence of determinable market value.
Debate Over Tax Affecting Plays Out in New Divorce Case
Massachusetts Supreme Court applies tax-affecting analysis to valuation of Subchapter S corporations in divorce.
Which is More Credible: an Owner’s Projections or Those Used for Financing?
Which is more credible: owner’s testimony regarding weekly sales forecasts or the forecasts he prepared to secure financing?
Aukeman v. Aukeman
Which is more credible: owner’s testimony regarding weekly sales forecasts or the forecasts he prepared to secure financing?
Bernier v. Bernier (I)
Massachusetts Supreme Court applies tax affecting analysis to valuation of subchapter S corporations in divorce.