Lone dissenter of medical merger challenges share valuation
In a California case, a physician was a nonexclusive provider to a physician network and was one of 75 shareholders.
Physician Shareholder Asserts Transaction Bonuses Breach Board’s Fiduciary Duties—Appeals Court Finds Them Just and Reasonable
A physician shareholder claimed that the fair market value of his one share (of 75 total shares) was undervalued when the physician practice was merged and sold to NAMM California, a company that develops and manages physician provider networks. NAMM paid $18 million in the merger, and over $12 million of that amount was paid to individual physician shareholders in the form of “transaction bonuses.” The remaining almost $6 million was paid pro rata to the shareholders. The plaintiff appealed the judgment of the California trial court, but the appellate court deemed the transaction bonuses as “just and reasonable” and affirmed the trial court.
Ghaly v. Riverside Cmty. Healthplan Med. Grp.
A physician shareholder claimed that the fair market value of his one share (of 75 total shares) was undervalued when the physician practice was merged and sold to NAMM California, a company that develops and manages physician provider networks. NAMM paid $18 million in the merger, and over $12 million of that amount was paid to individual physician shareholders in the form of “transaction bonuses.” The remaining almost $6 million was paid pro rata to the shareholders. The plaintiff appealed the judgment of the California trial court, but the appellate court deemed the transaction bonuses as “just and reasonable” and affirmed the trial court.
New case on qualifying for Subchapter V in bankruptcy
In 2020, the Small Business Reorganization Act (SBRA) added Subchapter V to Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Act, which changes or eliminates some of the Chapter 11 requirements, making it more debtor-friendly.
In re Hillman
The Bankruptcy Court decided and ordered on the issue of whether the debtor qualified as a “small business debtor” under subchapter V of Chapter 11. The court decided that, as of the petition date, the debtor was engaged in commercial or business activity in both of its business activities. The debtor met her burden of proof as qualifying under Subchapter V of Chapter 11.
Bankruptcy Court Decides on Debtor Qualification as a ‘Small Business’ Under Chapter 11
The Bankruptcy Court decided and ordered on the issue of whether the debtor qualified as a “small business debtor” under subchapter V of Chapter 11. The court decided that, as of the petition date, the debtor was engaged in commercial or business activity in both of its business activities. The debtor met her burden of proof as qualifying under Subchapter V of Chapter 11.
Appellate court rules on valuation of inventory in Sears bankruptcy
Sears (the Amazon of its day) recently emerged from bankruptcy after four years and thousands of court filings.
ESL Invs., L.P. v. Sears Holdings Corp. Debtor-Appellee (In re Sears Holdings Corp.)
Second-lien holders, entitled to payment only after the debts of first-lien holders have been discharged, argued that the value of the collateral that secured their claims, as measured on the petition date, vastly exceeded what they had been paid and that they were accordingly entitled to priority payment of the difference. At trial, all parties put on evidence as to the value of the assets at the petition date. The differences varied widely. “The differences among these values turned primarily on how the experts calculated the revenue Debtors could expect to earn from selling their inventory.” The appeal dealt primarily with this inventory issue and how it should be valued.
Valuation of Inventory Key to Decision on Collateral Value in Bankruptcy
Second-lien holders, entitled to payment only after the debts of first-lien holders have been discharged, argued that the value of the collateral that secured their claims, as measured on the petition date, vastly exceeded what they had been paid and that they were accordingly entitled to priority payment of the difference. At trial, all parties put on evidence as to the value of the assets at the petition date. The differences varied widely. “The differences among these values turned primarily on how the experts calculated the revenue Debtors could expect to earn from selling their inventory.” The appeal dealt primarily with this inventory issue and how it should be valued.
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).
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.
In Re S-Tek 1, LLC
The debtor, S-Tek 1 LLC, submitted a motion to value to the Bankruptcy Court to determine the value of the collateral of Surv-Tek Inc. as to debt owed it by the debtor pledged as collateral for debt owed by S-Tek to Surv-Tek. The valuation was to be used in the confirmation of a Chapter 11 reorganization of S-Tek. The court used the replacement value standard of value instead of the “ongoing concern” value since the replacement value provided a value greater than the “enterprise value” (i.e., ongoing concern value).
Bankruptcy Court Uses the ‘Replacement Value Standard’ as It Determines That Debtor ‘Enterprise Value’ Is Lower and Inappropriate
The debtor, S-Tek 1 LLC, submitted a motion to value to the Bankruptcy Court to determine the value of the collateral of Surv-Tek Inc. as to debt owed it by the debtor pledged as collateral for debt owed by S-Tek to Surv-Tek. The valuation was to be used in the confirmation of a Chapter 11 reorganization of S-Tek. The court used the replacement value standard of value instead of the “ongoing concern” value since the replacement value provided a value greater than the “enterprise value” (i.e., ongoing concern value).
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.
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.
Cont'l Investors Fund LLC v. TradingScreen Inc.
The defendant did not breach its redemption agreement because a committee of directors, “properly engaged in the judgment-laden task of determining the amount of funds that the company could use for redemptions … [and] determined that using a greater amount of cash to redeem more shares threatened the company's ability to continue as a going concern.” As a result, interest on the asserted obligation back to 2013 was not allowed at 13%, the amount per the agreement.
Company Did Not Breach Its Redemption Agreement Because of Diligence of Directors
The defendant did not breach its redemption agreement because a committee of directors, “properly engaged in the judgment-laden task of determining the amount of funds that the company could use for redemptions … [and] determined that using a greater amount of cash to redeem more shares threatened the company's ability to continue as a going concern.” As a result, interest on the asserted obligation back to 2013 was not allowed at 13%, the amount per the agreement.
Court of Appeals Sides With Taxpayers on Right to Vet IRS Expert Valuation
Court of Appeals finds Tax Court held mistaken view of burden of proof and erred in declining to evaluate taxpayers’ multiple challenges to IRS’s expert valuation; on remand, Tax Court may consider new valuation evidence, appeals court says.
Cavallaro v. Commissioner (Cavallaro II)
Court of Appeals finds Tax Court held mistaken view of burden of proof and erred in declining to evaluate taxpayers’ multiple challenges to IRS’s expert valuation; on remand, Tax Court may consider new valuation evidence, appeals court says.
Court of Appeals Sides With Taxpayers on Right to Vet IRS Expert Valuation
Court of Appeals finds Tax Court held mistaken view of burden of proof and erred in declining to evaluate taxpayers’ multiple challenges to IRS’s expert valuation; on remand, Tax Court may consider new valuation evidence, appeals court says.
Expert dubbed "unpersuasive" rebuts Judge Laro's rejection
I have reviewed the write up of Estate of Kaufman in the May issue of your newsletter, and I am very concerned that it unfairly portrays me as having not done a credible valuation because it takes Judge Laro's criticisms of my report at face value.
Court Judges Assessment of Risk Factors, Marketability Discount Evidence
The issue in this consolidated case was the fair market value of two minority nonvoting stock interests in Schwan's Sales Enterprises Inc. (SSE), one as of Dec. 31, 1992 (date of gift) and the other as of Dec. 31, 1994 (date of charitable contribution).
Okerlund v. United States (I)
The issue in this consolidated case was the fair market value of two minority nonvoting stock interests in Schwan's Sales Enterprises, Inc.
40% 'Aggregate' Discount: Marketability, Control, and Unrealized Capital Gains
The IRS determined that decedent's estate owed amounts for estate tax and gift tax deficiencies.