Court Determines Fair Value of 50% Interest in Real Estate Company—Parties Could Not Agree on Value
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.
Normalizing Owner Compensation + RCReports Case Study
This webinar is for business valuators, business advisors who may be involved in shareholder litigation over compensation and tax advisors who help closely held businesses during IRS audits. This webinar explains the accepted methodologies for normalizing owner compensation in business valuations.
Pinto v. Schinitsky
The Supreme Court of New York denied motions to dismiss assertions of excess compensation, payments to a consultant, and a salary paid to the defendant’s mother. The court also denied a Daubert motion to exclude the plaintiff’s expert on the reasonableness of compensation. The plaintiff’s expert, a CPA, was found to qualify even though reasonable compensation was not his competency for his practice.
New York Court Denies Claims in Three Damages Categories, Denies Daubert Motion to Exclude Experts
The Supreme Court of New York denied motions to dismiss assertions of excess compensation, payments to a consultant, and a salary paid to the defendant’s mother. The court also denied a Daubert motion to exclude the plaintiff’s expert on the reasonableness of compensation. The plaintiff’s expert, a CPA, was found to qualify even though reasonable compensation was not his competency for his practice.
In re GGP, Inc. Stockholder Litig.
Brookfield Property Partners Inc. acquired GGP Inc. in a merger transaction. During negotiations, Brookfield Property Partners LP expressed concern over the number of GGP stockholders who might see appraisal under Delaware law. Brookfield Property Partners suggested inserting an appraisal rights closing condition that allowed it to terminate the agreement if a specified number of GGP shares demanded appraisal. Brookfield Property Partners objected, and the condition was nixed. At the urging of Brookfield Property Partners, the merger was structured so that Brookfield paid a sizable preclosing dividend followed by a small residual payment called a “per share merger consideration.” GGP stockholders were told they could exercise their appraisal rights solely in connection with the merger, set at $23.50 per share, in relation to the per-share merger consideration valued at $0.312 per share. Plaintiff stockholders claimed they were led to believe that a fair value determination would be limited to the value of the post-dividend of GGP. The Supreme Court agreed with the Chancery Court that the defendants did not unlawfully eliminate appraisal rights but disagreed that the proxy disclosures were sufficient.
The Delaware Chancery Court Erred in Dismissing Claims Regarding Appraisal Rights Disclosures in a Merger—Supreme Court Remands
Brookfield Property Partners Inc. acquired GGP Inc. in a merger transaction. During negotiations, Brookfield Property Partners LP expressed concern over the number of GGP stockholders who might see appraisal under Delaware law. Brookfield Property Partners suggested inserting an appraisal rights closing condition that allowed it to terminate the agreement if a specified number of GGP shares demanded appraisal. Brookfield Property Partners objected, and the condition was nixed. At the urging of Brookfield Property Partners, the merger was structured so that Brookfield funded a sizable preclosing dividend which was paid by GGP to eligible shareholders, followed by a small residual payment called a “per share merger consideration.” GGP stockholders were told they could exercise their appraisal rights solely in connection with the merger, set at $23.50 per share, in relation to the per-share merger consideration valued at $0.312 per share. Plaintiff stockholders claimed they were led to believe that a fair value determination would be limited to the value of the post-dividend of GGP. The Supreme Court agreed with the Chancery Court that the defendants did not unlawfully eliminate appraisal rights but disagreed that the proxy disclosures were sufficient.
Agnelli v. Lennox Miami Corp.
In this lengthy opinion dealing with the fair value of a 12.5% interest the plaintiff held in a Florida hotel holding corporation, the U.S. District Court determined that discounts for minority interest and for marketability are not allowed. The court also determined damages for the breach of contract, or, in the alternative, breach of fiduciary duty, on the part of the plaintiff.
U.S. District Court Denies Use of Discounts in Determining the Fair Value of a Hotel Holding Corporation in a Dissolution Case
In this lengthy opinion dealing with the fair value of a 12.5% interest the plaintiff held in a Florida hotel holding corporation, the U.S. District Court determined that discounts for minority interest and for marketability are not allowed. The court also determined damages for the breach of contract, or, in the alternative, breach of fiduciary duty, on the part of the plaintiff.
Two cases on trapped-in gains tax—with opposite outcomes
In a California divorce case we recently covered, an appeals court disallowed a discount for possible future taxes because the taxes were neither immediate nor specific.
Appeals court OKs one discount, KOs another in divorce matter
In a California divorce matter, the husband’s expert applied two discounts to the valuation of the wife’s one-half interest in his business: one discount for possible future taxes and one for a discount for lack of marketability (DLOM).
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.
In re Multiplan Corp. Stockholders Litig.
This case dealt with a motion to dismiss the claims of the plaintiffs (by the defendants) in a stockholder suit against a special purpose acquisition company (SPAC). The claims were primarily that the plaintiffs’ claims were derivative, which failed to plead demand futility and that the business judgment rule applied. Many of the parties’ arguments centered around unique characteristics of a SPAC. In concluding that the entire fairness standard of review applied, the Delaware Chancery Court noted that “the fact that a reasonably conceivable impairment of public stockholders’ redemption rights—in the form of materially misleading disclosures—has been pleaded in this case.” The case was to go forward against all but two defendants.
Delaware Chancery Court Allows Breach of Fiduciary Suit to Move Forward on a SPAC
This case dealt with a motion to dismiss the claims of the plaintiffs (by the defendants) in a stockholder suit against a special purpose acquisition company (SPAC). The claims were primarily that the plaintiffs’ claims were derivative, which failed to plead demand futility and that the business judgment rule applied. Many of the parties’ arguments centered around unique characteristics of a SPAC. In concluding that the entire fairness standard of review applied, the Delaware Chancery Court noted that “the fact that a reasonably conceivable impairment of public stockholders’ redemption rights—in the form of materially misleading disclosures—has been pleaded in this case.” The case was to go forward against all but two defendants.
Harvey v. Harvey (In re Michael S.)
In this divorce case, on appeal, the California appellate court rejected a discount for taxes not immediate and specific and allowed a DLOM regarding the value of the wife’s one-half interest in the jointly owned business. The court also determined that “the [trial] court impliedly made the factual findings necessary to support its ruling regarding Cynthia’s breach of fiduciary duty claim.” Finally, the appeals court determined that the trial court had the authority to set its own terms for payment of the equalization amount to the wife.
In a Divorce Case, the California Court of Appeal Rejects Discount for Taxes Not Immediate and Specific But Allows a DLOM
In this divorce case, on appeal, the California appellate court rejected a discount for taxes not immediate and specific and allowed a DLOM regarding the value of the wife’s one-half interest in the jointly owned business. The court also determined that “the [trial] court impliedly made the factual findings necessary to support its ruling regarding Cynthia’s breach of fiduciary duty claim.” Finally, the appeals court determined that the trial court had the authority to set its own terms for payment of the equalization amount to the wife.
Pourmoradi v. Gabbai
This California appellate case reviewed the trial court’s decision that discounts for lack of control and lack of marketability were not appropriate in determining the value to be paid to the plaintiffs in this corporate dissolution case where the remaining 50% owners exercised their right to purchase the plaintiff’s 50% interest in the LLC.
California Appellate Court Remands for Application of Trial Court of Wrong Standard of Value Denying Discounts
This California appellate case reviewed the trial court’s decision that discounts for lack of control and lack of marketability were not appropriate in determining the value to be paid to the plaintiffs in this corporate dissolution case where the remaining 50% owners exercised their right to purchase the plaintiff’s 50% interest in the LLC.
Recap of recent BV cases of note
A number of recent cases have emerged that contain various valuation issues.
Cont'l Investors Fund LLC v. TradingScreen Inc.
The defendant did not breach its redemption agreement because a committee of directors, “properly engaged in the judgment-laden task of determining the amount of funds that the company could use for redemptions … [and] determined that using a greater amount of cash to redeem more shares threatened the company's ability to continue as a going concern.” As a result, interest on the asserted obligation back to 2013 was not allowed at 13%, the amount per the agreement.
Company Did Not Breach Its Redemption Agreement Because of Diligence of Directors
The defendant did not breach its redemption agreement because a committee of directors, “properly engaged in the judgment-laden task of determining the amount of funds that the company could use for redemptions … [and] determined that using a greater amount of cash to redeem more shares threatened the company's ability to continue as a going concern.” As a result, interest on the asserted obligation back to 2013 was not allowed at 13%, the amount per the agreement.
Iowa Supreme Court Allows Reduction in Value for Transaction Costs but Refuses to Allow a Reduction for Built-In Capital Gains Tax
This case was decided, on appeal, under the Iowa “election-to-purchase-in-lieu-of-dissolution statute.” The Iowa Supreme Court decided that, because the parties’ experts had “both included transaction costs in their valuations under a net asset approach, the district court’s failure to reduce the asset values to account for the costs to liquidate the corporation’s assets warranted reversal.” Additionally, since there was no evidence of an intention to liquidate the company or its assets, the court declined to adjust for the built-in gains tax consequences urged by the majority shareholder.
Guge v. Kassel Enters.
This case was decided, on appeal, under the Iowa “election-to-purchase-in-lieu-of-dissolution statute.” The court decided that, because the parties’ experts had “both included transaction costs in their valuations under a net asset approach, the district court’s failure to reduce the asset values to account for the costs to liquidate the corporation’s assets warranted reversal.” Additionally, since there was no evidence of an intention to liquidate the company or its assets, the court declined to adjust for the built-in gains tax consequences urged by the majority shareholder.
Island Light & Power Co. v. Sara Golvinveaux McGinnes 2011 Trust
In this shareholder dissent suit, the one-third shareholder of Island Light & Power Co. (aka BIPCO) dissented to a forced sale of the assets of BIPCO resulting in a liquidation of BIPCO and of the shareholder Trust’s stock. In a resulting bench trial, the court rejected the fair value determinations of the experts for both parties and adopted its own methodology (as is allowed by Rhode Island courts, including its Supreme Court) to determine the fair value of the one-third interest held by the Trust.
Court Adopts its Own Methodology in Determining Fair Value in a Shareholder Dissent Suit
In this shareholder dissent suit in Rhode Island, the one-third shareholder of Island Light & Power Co. (aka BIPCO) dissented to a forced sale of the assets of BIPCO resulting in a liquidation of BIPCO and a liquidation of the shareholder Trust’s stock. In a bench trial resulting from the dissent, the court rejected the fair value determinations of the experts for both parties and adopted its own methodology (as is allowed by Rhode Island courts, including its Supreme Court) to determine the fair value of the one-third interest held by the Trust.