Court has limited menu for steakhouse valuation
In a Michigan case, two 50% owners of a Ponderosa steakhouse were locked in a battle over the Old West-themed eatery, with both owners engaging in oppressive conduct against the other. They left it up to the court to decide their fate.
Bankruptcy Court Determines Fair Value Under Asset Approach With ‘Limited Evidence’ Available to It
This case involved a hotly contested battle over the fate of a Ponderosa restaurant in Michigan. The two owners, having had a falling out, pursued contentious litigation to wrest control of the restaurant from each other. Having no business valuation available to the court, the court was left with a real estate appraisal and limited evidence of assets and liabilities to determine the fair value of a 50% interest in the restaurant to be used in the buyout of one of the shareholders by the other shareholder.
Herremans v. Fedo (In re Herremans)
This case involved a hotly contested battle over the fate of a Ponderosa restaurant in Michigan. The two owners, having had a falling out, pursued contentious litigation to wrest control of the restaurant from each other. Having no business valuation available to the court, the court was left with a real estate appraisal and limited evidence of assets and liabilities to determine the fair value of a 50% interest in the restaurant to be used in the buyout of one of the shareholders by the other shareholder.
BV News and Trends March 2023
A monthly roundup of key developments of interest to business valuation experts.
BVResearch Pro adds another issue of the ASA’s BV Review
Among many other resources, the BVResearch Pro platform contains the full archive of the Business Valuation Review going back to 1982.
Most States Reject Discounts in Appraisals and Oppression Cases—But There Are Important Exceptions
This article discusses, on a state-by-state basis, the rejection and acceptance of discounts for minority interest and lack of marketability in appraisals and in oppression and voluntary withdrawal cases. Discounts for lack of marketability at the shareholder level are rejected in most jurisdictions, but some states, including California and New York, still permit them.
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.
Sipko v. Koger, Inc.
The Supreme Court of New Jersey, in its second attempt to resolve this long-running shareholder dispute, a “thoroughly chewed apple”, and buyout, reversed the appellate court and remanded the case to the trial court for reinstatement of its valuation of the shareholder’s interest in two businesses and also agreed with the trial court that no marketability discount should be allowed to reduce the amount to be awarded to the plaintiff. The defendants chose not to call their own expert to provide an opinion of the fair value of the shareholder’s interests.
The Supreme Court of New Jersey Accepts Trial Court’s Value of Companies and Denies a Marketability Discount in a Contentious Buyout Dispute
The Supreme Court of New Jersey, in its second attempt to resolve this long-running shareholder dispute, a “thoroughly chewed apple”, and buyout, reversed the appellate court and remanded the case to the trial court for reinstatement of its valuation of the shareholder’s interest in two businesses and also agreed with the trial court that no marketability discount should be allowed to reduce the amount to be awarded to the plaintiff. The defendants chose not to call their own expert to provide an opinion of the fair value of the shareholder’s interests.
Court tweaks blue-sky method in valuing a car dealer
A Tennessee appellate court recently considered the Chancery Court’s determination of the value of an oppressed minority shareholder’s interest in an “ultra-high-end” car dealership.
No valuation adjustment for alleged acts of oppression
In a Connecticut case, four siblings were partners in a number of restaurant properties and one of the partners (who had a 25% interest) was ousted by the others.
Buckley v. Carlock
The Tennessee appellate court affirmed the Chancery Court’s determination of the value of an oppressed minority shareholder’s interest in an “ultra-high-end” car dealership. The valuation of an expert utilized the “blue sky method,” a rule of thumb method, to value the dealership and ultimately the minority interest. The Chancery Court conducted a hearing on which it heard valuation expert testimony. The appellate court affirmed the Chancery Court’s valuation and its methodology since it was generally accepted by the financial community.
Appellate Court Affirms Use of the ‘Blue Sky Method,’ a Rule of Thumb, to Value a Minority Interest in an Oppression Case
The Tennessee appellate court affirmed the Chancery Court’s determination of the value of an oppressed minority shareholder’s interest in an “ultra-high-end” car dealership. The valuation of an expert utilized the “blue sky method,” a rule of thumb method, to value the dealership and ultimately the minority interest. The Chancery Court conducted a hearing on which it heard valuation expert testimony. The appellate court affirmed the Chancery Court’s valuation and its methodology since it was generally accepted by the financial community.
Appellate court KOs discount for trapped-in capital gains taxes
In a Louisiana case, a dissenting shareholder was withdrawing her shares in a company and the valuation of her interest was in dispute, so a trial was held.
ShopRite, Inc. v. Gardiner
In determining the fair value of a minority interest in stock sold back to the companies in a shareholder oppression assertion, the Louisiana Court of Appeals rejected a discount for trapped-in capital gains tax since the companies had no intention of selling the properties owned. The appeals court also disallowed a reduction in fair value related to the value of affiliated accounts receivable, noting that there was no evidence that the receivables were uncollectible.
Louisiana Court of Appeals Disallows a Discount for Trapped-In Capital Gains Taxes and a Reduction in Receivables for Collectability
In determining the fair value of a minority interest in stock sold back to the companies in a shareholder oppression assertion, the Louisiana Court of Appeals rejected a discount for trapped-in capital gains tax since the companies had no intention of selling the properties owned. The appeals court also disallowed a reduction in fair value related to the value of affiliated accounts receivable, noting that there was no evidence that the receivables were uncollectible.
Gerring Props. v. Gerring
In this shareholder oppression suit appeal, the Minnesota appellate court upheld the prejudicial conduct to an oppressed shareholder and affirmed the disallowance of a marketability discount. Further, the appellate court affirmed the trial court’s order for dissolution when the appellants failed to exercise the option to pay court-ordered stock-buyout amounts.
Minnesota Appellate Court Upholds Prejudicial Conduct to Oppressed Shareholder and Affirms Disallowance of Marketability Discount
In this shareholder oppression suit appeal, the Minnesota appellate court upheld the prejudicial conduct to an oppressed shareholder and affirmed the disallowance of a marketability discount. Further, the appellate court affirmed the trial court’s order for dissolution when the appellants failed to exercise the option to pay court-ordered stock-buyout amounts.
New Jersey court applies DLOM in forced buyout: Defendant’s conduct created ‘extraordinary circumstance’
In adjudicating a New Jersey family dispute that escalated into an oppressed shareholder action, the trial court recently found the oppressing shareholder had created a situation that mandated the application of a discount for marketability (DLOM) in order to achieve a “fair and equitable” outcome.
