King v. King
In this Maryland divorce case, the Court of Special Appeals affirmed the trial court on all appealed issues including marital property determinations; monetary award to the wife; determination of incomes of the husband and wife; and determinations of alimony, child support, and related expenses. The Court of Special Appeals also affirmed that the husband’s business was not a gift and was marital property, and it determined the value of the business as the wife’s expert presented. Both parties were forensic accountants.
Maryland Appellate Court Affirms Trial Court on Value of Husband’s Business as Well as Several Other Divorce-Related Issues
In this Maryland divorce case, the Court of Special Appeals affirmed the trial court on all appealed issues including marital property determinations; monetary award to the wife; determination of incomes of the husband and wife; and determinations of alimony, child support, and related expenses. The Court of Special Appeals also affirmed that the husband’s business was not a gift and was marital property, and it determined the value of the business as the wife’s expert presented. Both parties were forensic accountants.
Snyder v. Snyder
In this Pennsylvania divorce matter, the appellate court accepted the wife’s valuation of the marital business using the “gross sales approach,” despite the husband’s objection that she was not qualified to determine the value. The trial court master recommended the wife’s value be accepted. However, the appellate court finds that the trial court double counted four business assets and remanded for a redetermination of the marital estate.
Court Affirms Acceptance of the Wife’s Gross Sales Valuation Method for the Marital Business, Remands for Double Counting of Business Assets
In this Pennsylvania divorce matter, the appellate court accepted the wife’s valuation of the marital business using the “gross sales approach,” despite the husband’s objection that she was not qualified to determine the value. The trial court master recommended the wife’s value be accepted. However, the appellate court finds that the trial court double counted four business assets and remanded for a redetermination of the marital estate.
Bougie v. Garth-Niggeman
The case originated at trial court on issues of the buyout of a deceased member’s interest in an LLC restaurant. Among the issues was the use of the LLC’s recipes by the acquirer of the deceased’s interest in violation of the operating agreement. The two remaining LLC members claimed the use of the LLC’s recipes in other restaurants irreparably harmed them. However, the remaining members did not seek, nor did they prove, any damages resulting from the use of the recipes. The appellate court affirmed the trial court’s denial of a permanent injunction against the use of the recipes.
Trial Court’s Denial of Permanent Injunctive Relief for Irreparable Harm Is Upheld
The case originated at trial court on issues of the buyout of a deceased member’s interest in an LLC restaurant. Among the issues was the use of the LLC’s recipes by the acquirer of the deceased’s interest in violation of the operating agreement. The two remaining LLC members claimed the use of the LLC’s recipes in other restaurants irreparably harmed them. However, the remaining members did not seek, nor did they prove, any damages resulting from the use of the recipes. The appellate court affirmed the trial court’s denial of a permanent injunction against the use of the recipes.
In re Platinum Corral, LLC
The Bankruptcy Court turned down a plan and amended plan of reorganization primarily because only the debtor would benefit from the plan and creditors would be left with little or no return. The court ordered a new plan be delivered to the court as soon as possible because time was of the essence.
Plan of Reorganization Cannot Be Approved Because Essentially Only the Debtor Would Benefit
The Bankruptcy Court turned down a plan and amended plan of reorganization primarily because only the debtor would benefit from the plan and creditors would be left with little or no return. The court ordered a new plan be delivered to the court as soon as possible because time was of the essence.
Brunswick Panini’s v. Zurich Am. Ins. Co.
In this business interruption case resulting from mandatory shutdowns to control COVID-19, the court granted defendant insurer’s motion to dismiss the plaintiffs’ claims. The court found the plaintiffs, which operated restaurant and bar facilities in Ohio but had to suspend operations because of the pandemic, did not meet the precondition of “direct physical loss of or damage to” the covered property requirement. Further, the microorganism exclusion precluded coverage of losses.
Court Rejects Plaintiffs’ Argument That Policy Covered Loss of Full Use of Premises Due to COVID-19-Related Shutdowns and Grants Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss
In this business interruption case resulting from mandatory shutdowns to control COVID-19, the court granted defendant insurer’s motion to dismiss the plaintiffs’ claims. The court found the plaintiffs, which operated restaurant and bar facilities in Ohio but had to suspend operations because of the pandemic, did not meet the precondition of “direct physical loss of or damage to” the covered property requirement. Further, the microorganism exclusion precluded coverage of losses.
Family Tacos, LLC v. Auto Owners Ins. Co.
In this business interruption case resulting from mandatory shutdowns to control COVID-19, the court grants motions of the defendant to dismiss claims of the plaintiff. The plaintiff files claims for coverage under its insurance policy for losses resulting from COVID-19 shutdowns and seeks to establish a class. The court decides that coverage is not provided under the policy because there is no physical loss; the civil authority provision is likewise not effective, and there is a virus exception that is applicable to the case at hand.
Plaintiff Fails to Convince the Court That Physical Loss or Physical Damage Has Occurred; Virus Clause Applies and Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Is Granted
In this business interruption case resulting from mandatory shutdowns to control COVID-19, the court grants motions of the defendant to dismiss claims of the plaintiff. The plaintiff files claims for coverage under its insurance policy for losses resulting from COVID-19 shutdowns and seeks to establish a class. The court decides that coverage is not provided under the policy because there is no physical loss; the civil authority provision is likewise not effective, and there is a virus exception that is applicable to the case at hand.
Court Says Plaintiff Fails to State Plausible Claim to Relief for COVID-19-Related Losses but Allows Amendment of Complaint
In this business interruption case resulting from mandatory shutdowns to control COVID-19, the court says the plaintiff, a California restaurant, failed to state plausible claims to relief but gives plaintiff an opportunity to amend its complaint, even if “it does not seem likely” the plaintiff will be able to overcome the complaint’s deficiencies.
Protégé Rest. Partners LLC v. Sentinel Ins. Co.
In this business interruption case resulting from mandatory shutdowns to control COVID-19, the court says the plaintiff, a California restaurant, failed to state plausible claims to relief but gives plaintiff an opportunity to amend its complaint, even if “it does not seem likely” the plaintiff will be able to overcome the complaint’s deficiencies.
Graspa Consulting v. United Nat’l Ins. Co.
In this business interruption case resulting from mandatory shutdowns to control COVID-19, the court dismisses plaintiff’s (a restaurant chain owner/operator) claims against insurance company; plaintiffs did not incur (nor did it assert) physical damages to premises as required by the terms of the insurance policy.
In COVID-19 Business Interruption Case, Court Grants Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Claim for COVID-19-Related Losses
In this business interruption case resulting from mandatory shutdowns to control COVID-19, the court dismisses plaintiff’s (a restaurant chain owner/operator) claims against insurance company; plaintiffs did not incur (nor did it assert) physical damages to premises as required by the terms of the insurance policy.
In COVID-19 Business Interruption Case, Court Finds Plaintiffs Did Not Argue Physical Loss and Virus Exemption Applies
In this business interruption case resulting from mandatory shutdowns to control COVID-19, the court granted a motion by the defendant insurance company to dismiss claims of plaintiffs; plaintiffs did not argue that they sustained a physical loss, and coverage would have been denied nevertheless by the virus exemption.
Real Hosp., LLC v. Travelers Cas. Ins. Co. of Am.
In this business interruption case resulting from mandatory shutdowns to control COVID-19, the court granted a motion by the defendant insurance company to dismiss claims of plaintiffs; plaintiffs did not argue that they sustained a physical loss, and coverage would have been denied nevertheless by the virus exemption.
Gavrielidis v. 80 Seaview Ave., LLC
In this dispute among siblings owning restaurants in Connecticut, the court determined that there was no oppression against one of the siblings whose employment was terminated and there were no wrongful acts. The court determined the fair market value of the plaintiff’s membership interests but denied discounts for lack of control and lack of marketability.
In a Siblings Ownership Dispute, Court Decides No Oppression and No Sums Owed by the Plaintiff, Determines the Value of the Plaintiff’s 25% Interest
In this dispute among siblings owning restaurants in Connecticut, the court determined that there was no oppression against one of the siblings whose employment was terminated and there were no wrongful acts. The court determined the fair market value of the plaintiff’s membership interests but denied discounts for lack of control and lack of marketability.
Rose’s 1, LLC v. Erie Ins. Exch.
D.C. court, ruling on parties’ motions for summary judgment, finds restaurant owners cannot show that mayor’s COVID-19-related closure orders constituted “direct physical loss” to the property, as required under the existing business interruption policy; court rules for insurer and closes case.
Court Says Restaurants Fail to Meet Requirements for COVID-19-Related Business Interruption Coverage
D.C. court, ruling on parties’ motions for summary judgment, finds restaurant owners cannot show that mayor’s COVID-19-related closure orders constituted “direct physical loss” to the property, as required under the existing business interruption policy; court rules for insurer and closes case.
Raley v. Brinkman
In LLC member buyout dispute, the Court of Appeals finds the term “fair value” does not contemplate the use of shareholder-level discounts. However, tax affecting is relevant evidence when determining the going-concern value of subject S corp. Trial court must consider evidence on tax affecting.
Tennessee Appeals Court Clarifies Use of Discounts and Tax Affecting in Court-Ordered LLC Buyout
In LLC member buyout dispute, the Court of Appeals finds the term “fair value” does not contemplate the use of shareholder-level discounts. However, tax affecting is relevant evidence when determining the going-concern value of subject S corp. Trial court must consider evidence on tax affecting.
Defendants’ Force Majeure Defense Related to Hurricane Devastation Does Not Excuse Breach of Contract
In rent payment dispute, court rejects defendant restaurant’s force majeure claim that devastating hurricane was act of God that interfered with restaurant’s use of property and excused performance where lease did not contain force majeure provision and rent payments stopped before storm.