Walsh v. Preston
In this ESOP ERISA case, the government (plaintiffs) (Secretary of Labor) alleged claims against the defendants, Robert N. Preston and TPP Holdings Inc. (and nominally against its ESOP) for: (1) breach of fiduciary duties; (2) engaging in prohibited transactions; and (3) co-liability of defendants. In a lengthy opinion, the court determined that the defendants did breach fiduciary duties and did engage in prohibited transactions. It further decided that there was no co-liability among the defendants, but it did not allow an offset of payments on debt of TPP Preston personally made. In determining FMV, the court did not allow a minority interest discount. In so doing, the resulting damages determined were minimal.
U.S. District Court Decides Some Issues for Government and Some for Defendants But Very Little in Damages in an ERISA ESOP Case
In this ESOP ERISA case, the government (plaintiffs) (Secretary of Labor) alleged claims against the defendants, Robert N. Preston and TPP Holdings Inc. (and nominally against its ESOP) for: (1) breach of fiduciary duties; (2) engaging in prohibited transactions; and (3) co-liability of defendants. In a lengthy opinion, the court determined that the defendants did breach fiduciary duties and did engage in prohibited transactions. It further decided that there was no co-liability among the defendants, but it did not allow an offset of payments on debt of TPP Preston personally made. In determining FMV, the court did not allow a minority interest discount. In so doing, the resulting damages determined were minimal.
The New Stark FMV is a Game Changer: The Rejection of “Survey Says” for Stark-Compliant Physician Compensation
This two-part BVR webinar series provides a critical and in-depth assessment of the new definitions of fair market value under the regulations for the federal physician self-referral law commonly known as “Stark.” Many in the healthcare valuation industry have viewed the updated definitions, along with new commentary from the Center for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), as promoting “business as usual” for healthcare valuation practice. Timothy Smith, however, begs to differ. Smith was a major ...
Warranting Further Discussion: Why the Use of Financing Warrants in ESOP Transactions Benefits American Workers
The leveraged Employee Stock Ownership Plan (ESOP) structure was created by US Congress to enable American workers to gain an equity interest in their companies without using their own funds. A critical component in the financing of leveraged ESOP transactions is a “warrant,” which enables corporate sponsors of ESOPs to access the financing necessary to facilitate purchases of company stock by ESOPs. Warrants also afford substantial benefits to ESOPs by providing downside risk for ESOP ...
Manbro Energy Corp. v. Chatterjee Advisors, LLC
The primary focus of this case was cross-motions for summary judgment on issues dealing with fiduciary duty and implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. A final issue, of importance to valuation experts, was a motion to exclude the testimony of the plaintiff’s valuation expert, which the court denied.
U.S. District Court (New York) Denies Motion to Exclude Expert Witness
The primary focus of this case was cross-motions for summary judgment on issues dealing with fiduciary duty and implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. A final issue, of importance to valuation experts, was a motion to exclude the testimony of the plaintiff’s valuation expert, which the court denied.
BV News and Trends August 2022
A monthly roundup of key developments of interest to business valuation experts.
Spotlight on the Jewelry Industry: Are Diamonds Still a Girl’s Best Friend?
No business can be valued in a vacuum, and the jewelry industry has undergone significant changes over the last few years. Join Lynton Kotzin for an overview of the current state and evolution of the jewelry industry. Understand the key value drivers, accounting issues, and the proper application of the different valuation approaches during these changing times.
Do fair value audit woes impact M&A?
A new study suggests that firms avoid obtaining intangibles via acquisition because they don’t want to face scrutiny from the PCAOB over impairment matters.
Simons v. Simons
The Nebraska Supreme Court allowed a fair value determination by the wife’s expert as the appropriate value for a divorce case and did not include any discounts that might apply in a fair market value determination. Much of the opinion dealt with the issue of a constructive trust, which the trial court determined results in a 50% ownership by the wife in the family business.
Nebraska Supreme Court Allows Fair Value Determination for Family-Owned Business and Does Not Allow Discounts
The Nebraska Supreme Court allowed a fair value determination by the wife’s expert as the appropriate value for a divorce case and did not include any discounts that might apply in a fair market value determination. Much of the opinion dealt with the issue of a constructive trust, which the trial court determined results in a 50% ownership by the wife in the family business.
Important Provider Compensation Topics in 2022
To begin a dialogue on important topics in physician compensation and fair market value, PYA surveyed more than 30 physician compensation experts to understand the collective thoughts on issues impacting these topics in 2022. These issues range from compensation for advance practice practitioners to value-based compensation. Please join PYA Senior Manager Katie Taylor as she discusses key physician compensation issues in 2022 ...
Corona is still the most valuable beer brand, per Brand Finance study
Corona has retained the No. 1 spot on the list of the world’s most valuable beer brands, according to “Beers 50 2022,” an annual report from Brand Finance.
An Actual Brand Valuation Report a Court Rejected as ‘Speculative’
Text (redacted) of a valuation report for the brand name of a local hotel and resort used in a dissenting shareholder case. Can you spot why the court rejected the valuation as being too speculative?
BV News and Trends July 2022
A monthly roundup of key developments of interest to business valuation experts.
Healthcare whistleblower case regarding FMV can proceed
The CFO of a healthcare provider blew the whistle on his former employer, alleging it overpaid for a surgery center in order to induce it to refer future business.
The New Stark FMV is a Game-Changer: Foundational Concepts and Valuation Methodology
This two-part BVR webinar series provides a critical and in-depth assessment of the new definitions of fair market value under the regulations for the federal physician self-referral law commonly known as “Stark.” Many in the healthcare valuation industry have viewed the updated definitions, along with new commentary from the Center for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), as promoting “business as usual” for healthcare valuation practice. Timothy Smith, however, begs to differ. Smith was a major ...
Something from Nothing? Valuing Synergies in Acquisitions and Litigation
Acquisitions (and the prices paid for them) are often rationalized on the basis that the combined enterprise will be more valuable than the two businesses were separately. For both the business appraiser tasked with quantifying the potential synergy value in a business combination and the management team tasked with achieving those synergies, verifying and quantifying this potential value creates a unique set of challenges. In Something From Nothing? Valuing Synergies in Acquisitions and Litigation, expert ...
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.
Fair v. Fair
The primary issue in this appeal was the value of Surgical Imaging Specialists Inc. (SIS), a subchapter S corporation that the parties formed in 2002. Stephan Fair, the husband, was the sole registered shareholder of SIS. Darlene Fair, the wife, was listed on all tax returns as an equal owner. The trial court awarded all community property interest to the husband and eliminated 25% of SIS’ goodwill as personal goodwill. On appeal, the husband contended that the trial court undervalued the personal goodwill discount and failed to apply a discount for lack of marketability. The husband also appealed the separate property award of an IRA account and a reimbursement to the wife for additional salary payments made by SIS to the husband. The court of appeal affirmed the trial court value of SIS, remanded the issue of IRA gains, and affirmed the reimbursement for additional salary payments.
Appellate Court Rules on the Value of the Marital Business as to Personal Goodwill, Minority, Liquidity, and Marketability Discounts
The primary issue in this appeal was the value of Surgical Imaging Specialists Inc. (SIS), a subchapter S corporation that the parties formed in 2002. Stephan Fair, the husband, was the sole registered shareholder of SIS. Darlene Fair, the wife, was listed on all tax returns as an equal owner. The trial court awarded all community property interest to the husband and eliminated 25% of SIS’ goodwill as personal goodwill. On appeal, the husband contended that the trial court undervalued the personal goodwill discount and failed to apply a discount for lack of marketability. The husband also appealed the separate property award of an IRA account and a reimbursement to the wife for additional salary payments made by SIS to the husband. The court of appeal affirmed the trial court value of SIS, remanded the issue of IRA gains, and affirmed the reimbursement for additional salary payments.
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.
No discounts in New Jersey shareholder buyout case
New Jersey is one of several states that allow discounts for lack of control and marketability in fair value situations if it is proven that the discounts are fair and equitable, but, in a recent case, the trial court disallowed the discounts—and an appellate court agreed.