Alaska Supreme Court Remands for Determination of Marital Property But Affirms Lower Court’s Acceptance of Wife’s Business Value
In a divorce case in Alaska, the Supreme Court determined that the wife’s expert’s valuation was superior to the husband’s expert’s valuation. Thus, the value of the business was not at issue on a remand. What was at issue was whether some or all of the businesses were separate property rather than marital property as the lower court ruled.
Barnes v. Barnes
The trial for this divorce case was extended almost eight months because the parties had assured the court it would be a three-day trial and it took four days. The fourth day was almost eight months after the end of the third day of trial. As a result, the husband argued that the value of his business should have been updated and consideration given to the effect of splitting the business’s real estate from the operations of the business. The appellate court noted that this issue had not been raised at trial and was, therefore, not appealable. Other issues not related to the business were issues for the appellate court.
Tennessee Appeals Court Affirms Trial Court Valuation and Trial Court’s Skepticism of Husband’s ‘Projections’
The trial for this divorce case was extended almost eight months because the parties had assured the court it would be a three-day trial and it took four days. The fourth day was almost eight months after the end of the third day of trial. As a result, the husband argued that the value of his business should have been updated and consideration given to the effect of splitting the business’s real estate from the operations of the business. The appellate court noted that this issue had not been raised at trial and was, therefore, not appealable. Other issues not related to the business were issues for the appellate court.
B.M. v. R.C.
The husband did not engage a valuation of his business, but the wife did. Her valuation expert arrived at a range of values, explaining that he lacked some information and that the information he did have regarding the financial status of the business did not reconcile. As a result, he set a range of values and determined that a range was the most appropriate way to determine the value. The trial court took an average of the range to determine the value for purposes of the marital estate. The supreme court affirmed the lower court decision to average the values.
The Supreme Court of Alaska Affirms the Use of a Range of Value to Determine the Value of a Business
The husband did not engage a valuation of his business, but the wife did. Her valuation expert arrived at a range of values, explaining that he lacked some information and that the information he did have regarding the financial status of the business did not reconcile. As a result, he set a range of values and determined that a range was the most appropriate way to determine the value. The trial court took an average of the range to determine the value for purposes of the marital estate. The supreme court affirmed the lower court decision to average the values.
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.
Wong v. Wong
The defendants and plaintiffs were all family members who co-owned seven apartment buildings that the defendants managed. The defendants embezzled profits from the buildings for at least a decade. On appeal, the defendants conceded plaintiffs were entitled to an award of both compensatory and punitive damages based on their wrongdoing, but they challenged the amount of the awards. The appellate court agreed that the punitive damages were excessive as a matter of law and adjusted them. All other defendants’ contentions were rejected, and the trial court was affirmed in those matters.
California Appeals Court Reduces Punitive Damages as Being Excessive
The defendants and plaintiffs were all family members who co-owned seven apartment buildings that the defendants managed. The defendants embezzled profits from the buildings for at least a decade. On appeal, the defendants conceded plaintiffs were entitled to an award of both compensatory and punitive damages based on their wrongdoing, but they challenged the amount of the awards. The appellate court agreed that the punitive damages were excessive as a matter of law and adjusted them. All other defendants’ contentions were rejected, and the trial court was affirmed in those matters.
Gore v. Gore
The key element in the appeal of this divorce case revolved around the valuation of the wife’s business, selling dietary supplements online. The wife failed to produce in a timely manner the documents the husband requested. She also failed to timely declare an expert who could testify as to the value of her business. “Wife appealed the circuit court’s award of monetary sanctions and the court’s exclusion of her and her expert’s testimony regarding her company’s valuation, as well as her attempts to testify regarding the value of her business. Husband cross-appealed the court’s distribution of marital property and the resultant monetary award.”
Appellate Court (Maryland) Affirms Trial Court’s Decision to Exclude Testimony of Wife’s Expert
The key element in the appeal of this divorce case revolved around the valuation of the wife’s business, selling dietary supplements online. The wife failed to produce in a timely manner the documents the husband requested. She also failed to timely declare an expert who could testify as to the value of her business. “Wife appealed the circuit court’s award of monetary sanctions and the court’s exclusion of her and her expert’s testimony regarding her company’s valuation, as well as her attempts to testify regarding the value of her business. Husband cross-appealed the court’s distribution of marital property and the resultant monetary award.”
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.
Faulty information slices personal goodwill in two
In a Utah divorce case, both the joint valuation expert and the expert the husband engaged agreed to the amount of personal goodwill in the husband’s consulting business.
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.
BV News and Trends May 2023
A monthly roundup of key developments of interest to business valuation experts.
Rothwell v. Rothwell
In an appeal of a Utah divorce case, the court affirmed the district court’s determination of value of the husband’s businesses. The district court allowed the exclusion of personal goodwill (in accordance with Utah case law Sorensen v. Sorensen) but did not allow the deduction of estimated tax to be paid on a hypothetical sale of the business at some future date.
Utah Appellate Court Excludes Personal Goodwill, Disallows Reduction for Taxes on Hypothetical Sale
In an appeal of a Utah divorce case, the court affirmed the district court’s determination of value of the husband’s businesses. The district court allowed the exclusion of personal goodwill (in accordance with Utah case law Sorensen v. Sorensen) but did not allow the deduction of estimated tax to be paid on a hypothetical sale of the business at some future date.
Court OKs including PPP loan in cash flows for CCF
In a Vermont divorce case, the valuation expert for the husband valued his business by excluding proceeds from a Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) loan as a one-time windfall for purposes of a capitalized cash flow (CCF) analysis.
Appellate court KOs ‘laughable’ purchase offer
An offer to purchase a business can sometimes be evidence of value, but a recent divorce case in Indiana illustrates when it is not.
Husband alleges wife foiled vet practice valuation
In a Kentucky divorce matter, the wife worked for the husband’s veterinary practice that he had purchased prior to their marriage.
Have you tried Abbott’s passive appreciation calculator?
In last week’s BVWire, we mentioned that Dr. Ashok Abbott (West Virginia University) has developed an online application that produces a passive appreciation factor on a national level for businesses in the retail sector.
Court do-over to figure passive appreciation for divorce
In an Ohio divorce case, the trial court made an award to the wife based on the full fair market value of the husband’s business.
Maher v. Cmejrek
The wife appealed the trial court’s decisions as to the values of the husband’s interests in his various medical practices and clinics and challenged the trial court’s determination of the husband’s income for support purposes. The appellate court affirmed the values of the medical practices and clinics and remanded the determination of income for support purposes for recalculation.
Indiana Appellate Court Affirms Valuation of Medical Practice Interests of Husband but Remands for Recalculation of Husband’s Income for Child Support
The wife appealed the trial court’s decisions as to the values of the husband’s interests in his various medical practices and clinics and challenged the trial court’s determination of the husband’s income for support purposes. The appellate court affirmed the values of the medical practices and clinics and remanded the determination of income for support purposes for recalculation.
- 1
- 2
- 3 (current)
- 4
- 5