Bennetti v. Oxford Restructuring Advisors LLC (In re Community Providers of Enrichment Services AZ Liquidating, Inc.)
Employee members of an ESOP had their claims against the debtors, based on cash option rights in an ESOP, denied. The debtors were not obligated to employees under the ESOP. The ESOP needed only to provide distributions in cash. There was no right of payment from the debtors. The U.S. Bankruptcy Appellate Panel for the 9th Circuit affirmed.
Bankruptcy Appellate Panel Denies Employee Members of ESOP Claims Against Debtors
Employee members of an ESOP had their claims against the debtors, based on cash option rights in an ESOP, denied. The debtors were not obligated to employees under the ESOP. The ESOP needed only to provide distributions in cash. There was no right of payment from the debtors. The U.S. Bankruptcy Appellate Panel for the 9th Circuit affirmed.
ES NPA Holding, LLC v. Comm’r
The Tax Court ruled that the class C units were a profits interest because, when applying the fair market value of the LLC at the time of receipt, the partner would not receive any proceeds from a liquidation at that time. Any proceeds in excess of fair market value would be speculative. No accuracy penalty was appropriate either.
On Liquidation Tax Matters, Partner Would Not Receive Any Proceeds, Interest Received Would Be Nontaxable Profits Interest
The Tax Court ruled that the class C units were a profits interest because, when applying the fair market value of the LLC at the time of receipt, the partner would not receive any proceeds from a liquidation at that time. Any proceeds in excess of fair market value would be speculative. No accuracy penalty was appropriate either.
Maher v. Cmejrek
The wife appealed the trial court’s decisions as to the values of the husband’s interests in his various medical practices and clinics and challenged the trial court’s determination of the husband’s income for support purposes. The appellate court affirmed the values of the medical practices and clinics and remanded the determination of income for support purposes for recalculation.
Indiana Appellate Court Affirms Valuation of Medical Practice Interests of Husband but Remands for Recalculation of Husband’s Income for Child Support
The wife appealed the trial court’s decisions as to the values of the husband’s interests in his various medical practices and clinics and challenged the trial court’s determination of the husband’s income for support purposes. The appellate court affirmed the values of the medical practices and clinics and remanded the determination of income for support purposes for recalculation.
Mekhaya v. Eastland Food Corp.
The plaintiff pleaded a statutory claim for shareholder oppression. In October 2018, Mekhaya was fired from his position at Eastland, where his salary of $400,000 per year included an implied dividend. The implied dividend was also included in the salaries of the other shareholders, all relatives of Mekhaya. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss, which the district court granted. The plaintiff appealed. He noted that, after his removal, they paid themselves excessively high salaries and refused to pay him dividends, thus frustrating his expectations as a shareholder. The Appellate Court of Maryland disagreed with the decision of the trial court.
Maryland Court of Appeals Reverses Dismissal of an Oppression Claim—Finds There Could Be Disguised Dividend Issue
The plantiff pleaded a statutory claim for shareholder oppression. In October 2018, Mekhaya was fired from his position at Eastland, where his salary of $400,000 per year included an implied dividend. The implied dividend was also included in the salaries of the other shareholders, all relatives of Mekhaya. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss, which the district court granted. The plaintiff appealed. He noted that, after his removal, they paid themselves excessively high salaries and refused to pay him dividends, thus frustrating his expectations as a shareholder. The Appellate Court of Maryland disagreed with the decision of the trial court.
Furrer v. Siegel & Rouhana, LLC
A name attorney in a Maryland law firm withdrew after having his license suspended. He sued the firm for compensation for his 26.5% interest in the firm. The firm countersued for damages related to his mistreatment of client accounts. The trial court determined a value of his interest and also determined damages that the attorney owed the firm for his mistreatment of client accounts. The appellate court affirmed the damages but remanded the valuation of the 26.5% interest.
Maryland Appellate Court Remands for Valuation of Withdrawing Member’s Interest in Law Firm and Affirms Damages Award
A name attorney in a Maryland law firm withdrew after having his license suspended. He sued the firm for compensation for his 26.5% interest in the firm. The firm countersued for damages related to his mistreatment of client accounts. The trial court determined a value of his interest and also determined damages that the attorney owed the firm for his mistreatment of client accounts. The appellate court affirmed the damages but remanded the valuation of the 26.5% interest.
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.
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.
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.
Paganelli v. Lovelace
This case resulted in the court issuing a partial summary judgment in favor of the defendant (and counterclaimant) in a matter regarding a sale/purchase contract between the plaintiff and the defendant. The cross-allegations resulted from the defendant allegedly breaching the purchase contract, while the defendant alleged that the plaintiff first breached the contract and committed fraud in entering into the contract.
Court Issues Partial Summary Judgment in Favor of Party Alleging Breach of Contract
This case resulted in the court issuing a partial summary judgment in favor of the defendant (and counterclaimant) in a matter regarding a sale/purchase contract between the plaintiff and the defendant. The cross-allegations resulted from the defendant allegedly breaching the purchase contract, while the defendant alleged that the plaintiff first breached the contract and committed fraud in entering into the contract.
Tax Court rejects claimed deduction for management fees
The U.S. Tax Court recently agreed with the Internal Revenue Service that management fees a corporation paid to its three shareholders over a three-year period were not deductible since none of the fees were paid “purely for services” and the petitioner failed to show the fees were “ordinary, necessary, and reasonable.”
Tax Court Rejects Claimed Deduction for Management Fees
The U.S. Tax Court recently agreed with the Internal Revenue Service that management fees a corporation paid to its three shareholders over a three-year period were not deductible since none of the fees were paid “purely for services” and the petitioner failed to show the fees were “ordinary, necessary, and reasonable.” Rather, they represented disguised distributions, the court found.
Aspro, Inc. v Commissioner
The U.S. Tax Court recently agreed with the Internal Revenue Service that management fees a corporation paid to its three shareholders over a three-year period were not deductible since none of the fees were paid “purely for services” and the petitioner failed to show the fees were “ordinary, necessary, and reasonable.” Rather, they represented disguised distributions, the court found.