BV News and Trends March 2024
A monthly roundup of key developments of interest to business valuation experts.
Court figures fair value of startup biotech for dissenters
In a dissenting shareholder case in a federal district court in Georgia, neither the Black-Scholes method nor the prior transactions method convinced a court of the value of a startup biotech company.
Abeome Corp., Inc. v. Stevens
The parties did not agree on a fair value of the shares in a dissenting shareholder suit. The court, using information in evidence, including expert witness testimony from both parties’ experts, determined the fair value.
U.S. District Court Determines Fair Value of Shares
The parties did not agree on a fair value of the shares in a dissenting shareholder suit. The court, using information in evidence, including expert witness testimony from both parties’ experts, determined the fair value.
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.
Valuation expert’s credibility takes several hits
In a New York fair value case, one of the 50% owners filed for dissolution and the other owner elected to buy him out.
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.
Rosenthal v. Erber
In a New York business dispute, the court analyzed valuation reports from both sides and then determined the fair value of the entity and of the selling shareholder’s 50% interest. Offering criticisms of both reports, she then started with the report of the selling shareholder’s report and discarded the report of the buying shareholder, which had some evidentiary issues as to back rent due and other issues.
Fair Value Decision Analyzes Valuation Issues
In a New York business dispute, the court analyzed valuation reports from both sides and then determined the fair value of the entity and of the selling shareholder’s 50% interest. Offering criticisms of both reports, she then started with the report of the selling shareholder’s report and discarded the report of the buying shareholder, which had some evidentiary issues as to back rent due and other issues.
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.
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.
In re Tesla Motors Stockholder Litig.
At issue was a 2016 acquisition of Solar City Corp. by Tesla. Some Tesla shareholders claimed that Musk caused Tesla to overpay for Solar through his alleged domination and control of Tesla’s board. The primary focus of the shareholders was that Solar was insolvent at the time of the acquisition. The court applied the “entire fairness” standard. The Court of Chancery found the acquisition to be “entirely fair.” The Delaware Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Chancery decision.
Delaware Supreme Court Upholds ‘Entire Fairness’ of a Tesla Acquisition
At issue was a 2016 acquisition of Solar City Corp. by Tesla. Some Tesla shareholders claimed that Musk caused Tesla to overpay for Solar through his alleged domination and control of Tesla’s board. The primary focus of the shareholders was that Solar was insolvent at the time of the acquisition. The court applied the “entire fairness” standard. The Court of Chancery found the acquisition to be “entirely fair.” The Delaware Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Chancery decision.
Hoensheid v. Comm’r (In re Estate of Hoensheid)
The taxpayers made a valid gift of stock, but they realized and recognized gain because their right to the proceeds from the sale occurred before the gift was made. They also were not entitled to a charitable contribution deduction because they did not procure a qualified appraisal. The taxpayers were not liable for an underpayment penalty.
Petitioners Not Allowed a Charitable Contribution—Did Not Use a Qualified Appraiser
The taxpayers made a valid gift of stock, but they realized and recognized gain because their right to the proceeds from the sale occurred before the gift was made. They also were not entitled to a charitable contribution deduction because they did not procure a qualified appraisal. The taxpayers were not liable for an underpayment penalty.
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.
Jayawardena v. Daka
This case involved a shareholder dispute among four shareholders of a physician practice (Ferncreek Cardiology PA) and two real estate LLCs. There were buy-sell provisions for each of the three entities. As to Ferncreek, the buy-sell provision was essentially an increase in book value provision, as the regular account determined in “good faith.” Payment provisions were also included in the agreement. The two real estate LLCs had a buy-sell provision that provided for either a single agreed-upon appraiser or three appraisers if no agreement was made. The plaintiff made the decision to exit the practice, triggering the buy-sell provisions. The parties were not able to agree on certain provisions as they worked through the buy-sell agreements. The trial court entered partial summary judgments on some claims of both parties. This appeal dealt with these partial summary judgments and was filed by the plaintiff.
North Carolina Appeals Court Affirms Decisions on Value of Businesses Under Buy-Sell Agreements
This case involved a shareholder dispute among four shareholders of a physician practice (Ferncreek Cardiology PA) and two real estate LLCs. There were buy-sell provisions for each of the three entities. As to Ferncreek, the buy-sell provision was essentially an increase in book value provision, as the regular account determined in “good faith.” Payment provisions were also included in the agreement. The two real estate LLCs had a buy-sell provision that provided for either a single agreed-upon appraiser or three appraisers if no agreement was made. The plaintiff made the decision to exit the practice, triggering the buy-sell provisions. The parties were not able to agree on certain provisions as they worked through the buy-sell agreements. The trial court entered partial summary judgments on some claims of both parties. This appeal dealt with these partial summary judgments and was filed by the plaintiff.
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.
Court sets fair value of 50% interest in realty firm
In Connecticut, a real estate firm had a shareholder agreement that allowed for an independent appraisal if one of the owners wanted out.
Buccieri v. New Hope Realty, Inc.
This case arose out of a dispute between the surviving family and a trustee of the founders of New Hope Realty Inc. The parties could not agree on the management and operations of New Hope Realty. On July 7, 2020, a dissolution proceeding was commenced. The defendants elected to purchase the plaintiffs’ shares. Subsequently, the parties could not agree as to the fair value of the plaintiffs’ interest. The plaintiffs asked the court to determine the value. The court held hearings including testimony from expert witnesses from both parties and determined the fair value.