Low buyback value stings departing owners
Shareholder-employees should take a lesson from a recent case and take a fresh look at their buyout agreements—especially the part about the redemption value.
Laurilliard v. McNamee Lochner, P.C.
The plaintiffs, minority shareholder employees in a law firm, brought suit against their firm for breaching their employment contracts. The court determined that the plaintiffs were at-will employees and that there was no breach of their agreements when they were terminated. The court also determined that the under-market-value payment under their repurchase agreements was allowable since they were at-will employees.
New York Court Allows Enforcement of Under-Market-Value Buy-Sell and Approves At-Will Termination of Shareholder-Employees
The plaintiffs, minority shareholder employees in a law firm, brought suit against their firm for breaching their employment contracts. The court determined that the plaintiffs were at-will employees and that there was no breach of their agreements when they were terminated. The court also determined that the under-market-value payment under their repurchase agreements was allowable since they were at-will employees.
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.
Tax Court (Grudgingly) Allows Tax Affecting Under the SEAM Method
This was a gift tax valuation case the U.S. Tax Court decided. Gifts of minority interests in The Biltmore Co. were made from the its shareholders, the Cecils, to their children and grandchildren. The IRS audited the gift tax returns and assessed deficiencies for reporting too low fair market values of the gifts of The Biltmore Co. stock. Both sides presented experts to value the gifted interests. The experts agreed that the cash flows should be tax affected. The court accepted the tax affecting while allowing that it was not an admission by the Tax Court that tax affecting should apply in all cases. The Tax Court made changes to the values presented and cobbled together a final value that resulted in refunds to the taxpayers/petitioners.
Estate of Cecil v. Comm’r
This was a gift tax valuation case the U.S. Tax Court decided. Gifts of minority interests in The Biltmore Co. were made from the its shareholders, the Cecils, to their children and grandchildren. The IRS audited the gift tax returns and assessed deficiencies for reporting too low fair market values of the gifts of The Biltmore Co. stock. Both sides presented experts to value the gifted interests. The experts agreed that the cash flows should be tax affected. The court accepted the tax affecting while allowing that it was not an admission by the Tax Court that tax affecting should apply in all cases. The Tax Court made changes to the values presented and cobbled together a final value that resulted in refunds to the taxpayers/petitioners.
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.
Official Comm. of Unsecured Creditors of LB Steel, LLC v. Steelcast Ltd. (In re LB Steel, LLC)
The Bankruptcy Court in this case dealt with an adversary complaint from the Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors. The committee sought to avoid and recover payments the debtor made within the 90 days leading up to the bankruptcy filing to the parent company. For reasons including that the debtor was insolvent during that 90-day period, the court decided in favor of the committee and ordered the payments avoided and ordered the parent company to repay the debtor’s estate.
Bankruptcy Court Orders Parent Company to Repay Payments Within 90 Days of Filing
The Bankruptcy Court in this case dealt with an adversary complaint from the Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors. The committee sought to avoid and recover payments the debtor made within the 90 days leading up to the bankruptcy filing to the parent company. For reasons including that the debtor was insolvent during that 90-day period, the court decided in favor of the committee and ordered the payments avoided and ordered the parent company to repay the debtor’s estate.
Appeals court affirms modified liquidation value in shareholder dispute
In a Michigan shareholder deadlock case, a special master recommended that a sale of shares from one shareholder to the other would yield more value than if the company were dissolved.
No deduction for tax in shareholder buyout
In a North Dakota partnership dissolution case, the defendants argued on appeal that the district court erred in its valuation.
Pitsch v. Pitsch Holding Co.
In this shareholder deadlock litigation, the appellate court affirmed the decision of the trial court that the solution to the deadlock was to order a buyout of the plaintiffs’ stock by the defendants as opposed to a dissolution of the company. The appellate court also affirmed the use of a modified-liquidation value as providing a value that maximized the value to the individual shareholders.
Michigan Appeals Court Affirms Modified-Liquidation Value in a Shareholder Deadlock Litigation
In this shareholder deadlock litigation, the appellate court affirmed the decision of the trial court that the solution to the deadlock was to order a buyout of the plaintiffs’ stock by the defendants as opposed to a dissolution of the company. The appellate court also affirmed the use of a modified-liquidation value as providing a value that maximized the value to the individual shareholders.
Sproule v. Johnson
In this partnership dissolution case, the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s decision to use an appraisal of the Canadian entity as of 2019 instead of a value from an earlier agreement in principal. The later date was within the purview of the district court’s flexibility. Further, the Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s decision not to reduce the value of a partnership asset of stock in a Canadian corporation for taxes.
North Dakota Supreme Court Affirms Valuation Date, Affirms No Deduction for Taxes in Determining Stock Value
In this partnership dissolution case, the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s decision to use an appraisal of the Canadian entity as of 2019 instead of a value from an earlier agreement in principal. The later date was within the purview of the district court’s flexibility. Further, the Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s decision not to reduce the value of a partnership asset of stock in a Canadian corporation for taxes.
Bohac v. Benes Serv. Co.
The Nebraska District Court in this case applied discounts to its determination of fair value (FV). The Supreme Court found that the district court did not use the correct definition of fair value, resulting in discounts being applied to the estate’s shares. The Supreme Court also found that the proper premise of value was going concern and the proper methodology for value was the asset approach. The Supreme Court also allowed as a liability the deferred tax on potential future sale of assets by the corporation.
The Nebraska District Court Is Reversed in Its Determination of Fair Value
The Nebraska District Court in this case applied discounts to its determination of fair value (FV). The Supreme Court found that the district court did not use the correct definition of fair value, resulting in discounts being applied to the estate’s shares. The Supreme Court also found that the proper premise of value was going concern and the proper methodology for value was the asset approach. The Supreme Court also allowed as a liability the deferred tax on potential future sale of assets by the corporation.
Appellate court KOs unaccrued interest on dissipated assets
In a divorce case, an appellate court vacated the order of the trial court that erroneously charged the husband with over $4 million in unaccrued interest on marital assets that the husband fraudulently dissipated from the marital estate.
Mohen v. Mohen
In the trial court (TC), the wife was awarded $4,360,158 of mostly unaccrued interest on the corpus of trusts the husband set up unilaterally for the children. The TC took the value of those trusts, $9,291,372, as part of the marital estate. The TC also added $990,945 of interest that the trusts had received and the remaining unaccrued future interest for a total value of “distribution” paid to the husband of $14,642,475 related to the trusts. The appellate court (AC) determined that the future interest was future interest and, thus, not part of the marital estate. However, the AC let stand the determination that the value of the trusts were to be treated as a distribution to the husband.
Husband Dissipates Assets by Placing Them in Trusts for the Children, but the Appellate Court Does Not Allow Unaccrued Interest
In the trial court (TC), the wife was awarded $4,360,158 of mostly unaccrued interest on the corpus of trusts the husband set up unilaterally for the children. The TC took the value of those trusts, $9,291,372, as part of the marital estate. The TC also added $990,945 of interest that the trusts had received and the remaining unaccrued future interest for a total value of “distribution” paid to the husband of $14,642,475 related to the trusts. The appellate court (AC) determined that the future interest was future interest and, thus, not part of the marital estate. However, the AC let stand the determination that the value of the trusts were to be treated as a distribution to the husband.
- 1 (current)
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5