A summary of recent federal and state court cases involving final partner administrative adjustments, mergers, and matrimonial law This month we highlight four cases. The first is Rovakat, a federal appellate court decision where a claimed redemption was deemed a sale of stock. The In re MFW Shareholder Litigation case involves a motion for summary judgment where a majority of the minority shareholders approved a merger transaction; this was deemed a “cleansing device” that led to the dismissal of plaintiff’s leading claim, which involved an allegation of breach of fiduciary duty. In Matter of Central N.Y. Oil & Gas, the…
-
-
Top State Courts Consider the Value of Goodwill, the Legitimacy of the Income Method of Valuation In State of Texas v. Clear Channel Outdoor, the Texas Court of Appeals considers testimony from an expert regarding the income method of valuation for the billboards; in Walsh v. Walsh, the Court of Appeals of Arizona reassesses the realizable benefits of stock redemption value in a law firm, and determines the net assets of the firm should not be conflated with the husband’s own goodwill based on his reputation and experience.
-
Cases in Ohio, Delaware Assess Acquisition Share Value, Family Business In Iacampo v. Oliver Iacampo, the Ohio Court of Appeals rules on the appropriate use of experts in valuing a family business, the nature of passive income, and financial help from the wife’s parents. In Delaware, Gaerreald v. Just Care, Inc. turns on proper methods for determining share value, the value of an expert opinion, and deference to management projections.
-
Case Law—State: American Ethanol, Inc. v. Cordillera Fund, LP In American Ethanol, Inc. v. Cordillera Fund, LP, the Supreme Court of Nevada is required to weigh in on fair market value. A lower court had judged that stockholders were fairly paid some $1.75M (about $3 per share) for American Ethanol at the time of the merger. American Ethanol appealed, claiming it was worth more. Part of its argument was that its appraiser—an unaccredited one—couldn’t be expected to perform sophisticated calculations, such as a discount for lack of marketability. Find out what the Nevada Supreme Court determines and why!