Novel issue of law raised in ESOP case that pits trustee against appraiser
A fairly routine ESOP case that is being litigated in the 4th Circuit has raised a novel legal issue in this jurisdiction as to the financial liability of co-fiduciaries and nonfiduciaries, including the ESOP appraiser.
Acosta v. Reliance Trust Co.
In DOL’s overpayment case against company directors and ESOP trustee, court denies directors’ pretrial motion for dismissal of case, finding DOL advanced “plausible” case theories; court also finds ESOP defendants have no right to indemnification from estate of late owner/seller of company shares.
In ‘Overpriced ESOP Insider Transaction Case,’ Defendants’ Pretrial Motion for Indemnification Fails
In DOL’s overpayment case against company directors and ESOP trustee, court denies directors’ pretrial motion for dismissal of case, finding DOL advanced “plausible” case theories; court also finds ESOP defendants have no right to indemnification from estate of late owner/seller of company shares.
Remy v. Lubbock Nat’l Bank
In ESOP case, court finds ERISA provides for right to contribution among co-fiduciaries but finds trustee defendant has no right to contribution from nonfiduciary ESOP appraiser if trustee were found liable to ESOP for losses; court dismisses third-party complaint against ESOP appraiser.
Trustee’s Claim for Contribution Against ESOP Appraiser Collapses
In ESOP case, court finds ERISA provides for right to contribution among co-fiduciaries but finds trustee defendant has no right to contribution from nonfiduciary ESOP appraiser if trustee were found liable to ESOP for losses; court dismisses third-party complaint against ESOP appraiser.
Experts comment on recent Brundle ESOP decision
In its recent Brundle opinion (see last week’s coverage), the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals, in describing the major actors in the case, included a quote (not attributed) that the ESOP world was “a very incestuous community.”
It’s not just about FMV, Brundle ESOP appeals court ruling shows
“Fair market value” is not the only consideration when it comes evaluating the performance of the ESOP trustee, the 4th Circuit made clear in its recent ruling, on which we reported here last week and which represents another milestone in ESOP case law.
4th Circuit upholds Brundle ESOP valuation and damages findings
The 4th Circuit Court of Appeals just affirmed the district court’s ruling against the trustee in the intensely contested Brundle v. Wilmington Trust ESOP case, including the district court’s valuation and damages findings.
Brundle v. Wilmington Trust N.A. (III)
In key ESOP case, 4th Circuit affirms liability and damages findings against ESOP trustee; court says trustee’s reliance on ESOP appraiser’s contemporaneous valuation was not “reasonably justified”; district court used correct measure of damages and justifiable methodology, 4th Circuit finds.
4th Circuit Says Record Supports Liability and Damages Findings Against ESOP Trustee
In key ESOP case, 4th Circuit affirms liability and damages findings against ESOP trustee; court says trustee’s reliance on ESOP appraiser’s contemporaneous valuation was not “reasonably justified”; district court used correct measure of damages and justifiable methodology, 4th Circuit finds.
In Gatekeeper Role, Court Trains Attention on Expert Methodology, Not Conclusions
In ESOP case pivoting on valuation, court denies parties’ Daubert challenges; court notes “gatekeeping” means focusing “on principles and methodology, not the conclusions that [the experts] generate”; parties’ objections are mostly quarrels with opposing expert’s conclusions, court finds.
Acosta v. Wilmington Trust, N.A. (I) (Graphite)
In ESOP case pivoting on valuation, court denies parties’ Daubert challenges; court notes “gatekeeping” means focusing “on principles and methodology, not the conclusions that [the experts] generate”; parties’ objections are mostly quarrels with opposing expert’s conclusions, court finds.
DOL urges court to uphold judgment against trustee in Brundle ESOP litigation
In the ongoing Brundle v. Wilmington Trust ESOP saga, which is now in the appeals stage, the Department of Labor recently filed an amicus brief in support of the district court’s $29.8 million judgment against the ESOP trustee. The case arose out of a plan participant’s claim that the ESOP trustee breached its fiduciary duties to the plan by causing the ESOP to pay more than fair market value for the employer’s stock.
ESOP case alive (for now), but court limits damages testimony under Daubert
In a developing ESOP case, the government recently suffered a setback when the court agreed with the trustee that portions of the damages testimony the government’s expert proposed failed to hold up under the Daubert reliability prong.
Court Stands Behind Earlier ESOP Liability and Damages Rulings
Notwithstanding errors related to the court’s liability and damages determinations, the court rejects trustee’s motion for reconsideration as an inappropriate effort to introduce new legal theories and a late attempt to present a competing damages methodo ...
Trustee Liable for Inadequate ESOP Valuation Vetting
Court finds ESOP trustee liable for allowing overpayment for company shares; trustee rushed transaction and failed to scrutinize financial advisor’s valuation ignoring red flags related to projections, use of control premium, beta, rounding up of values.
ESOP Trustee Evaded Fiduciary Duties by Delegating Valuation
Court finds ESOP trustee liable for causing plan to overpay; trustee “delegated” valuation to ESOP valuator without inquiring into valuation components, including projections, and without exploring “glaring” gaps (industry analysis) in valuation report.
Brundle v. Wilmington Trust N.A. (II)
Notwithstanding errors related to the court’s liability and damages determinations, the court rejects trustee’s motion for reconsideration as an inappropriate effort to introduce new legal theories and a late attempt to present a competing damages methodo ...
Court Defends Earlier ESOP Liability and Damages Rulings
Notwithstanding errors related to the court’s liability and damages determinations, the court rejects trustee’s motion for reconsideration as an inappropriate effort to introduce new legal theories and a late attempt to present a competing damages methodo ...
ESOP trustee’s failure to vet valuation causes significant overpayment
Inadequate trustee performance was at the center of a recent case, featuring a nontraditional ESOP structure. The court found that, if the trustee had engaged with the underlying valuation, it would have discovered numerous weaknesses and prevented the ESOP from overpaying for the company stock.
ESOP Trustee Evaded Fiduciary Duties by Delegating Valuation
Court finds ESOP trustee liable for causing plan to overpay; trustee “delegated” valuation to ESOP valuator without inquiring into valuation components, including projections, and without exploring “glaring” gaps (industry analysis) in valuation report.
Perez v. First Bankers Trust Services, Inc.
Court finds ESOP trustee liable for causing plan to overpay; trustee “delegated” valuation to ESOP valuator without inquiring into valuation components, including projections, and without exploring “glaring” gaps (industry analysis) in valuation report.
Brundle v. Wilmington Trust N.A. (I)
Court finds ESOP trustee liable for allowing overpayment for company shares; trustee rushed transaction and failed to scrutinize financial advisor’s valuation ignoring red flags related to projections, use of control premium, beta, rounding up of values.
Trustee Liable for Inadequate ESOP Valuation Vetting
Court finds ESOP trustee liable for allowing overpayment for company shares; trustee rushed transaction and failed to scrutinize financial advisor’s valuation ignoring red flags related to projections, use of control premium, beta, rounding up of values.
Persuasive’ Defense Expert Testimony Defeats ESOP Overpayment Claims
Court says defense expert opinion provides “credible and persuasive” support for court’s conclusion that ESOP financial advisor produced sound fairness and valuation opinions prior to contested transaction; there was no overpayment for stock at issue.