ILNews

All elements of 'fair value' must be considered

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Although there isn't any Indiana caselaw detailing how the shares held by dissenting shareholders are to be appraised, the Indiana Court of Appeals adopted the view that trial courts should consider all possible elements of the present value of the corporation on the valuation date, including the company's possible future plans.

The appellate court concluded that it was appropriate for the experts valuing a hotel chain to consider the company's future plans and prospects, including the plans to build future hotels, and to consider the impact of those potential plans when valuing the hotel as of the valuation date.

In Lees Inns of America Inc. v. William R. Lee Irrevocable Trust, et al., No. 40A01-0901-CV-47, Lees Inns appealed the judgment in favor of the William R. Lee Irrevocable Trust granting the trust, as a minority shareholder, nearly $5 million for the value of its shares plus interest and other costs. The trust cross-appealed its award of prejudgment interest for only half of the relevant period under the Dissenters' Rights Statute.

Brothers William and Lester Lee owned Lees Inns. Lester transferred some stock to William, who placed it in the trust, which became the minority shareholder. Lester eventually bought out shares owned by William and the trust over their objections for a merger and paid the minority shareholders just under $1 million. The trust sued for breach of fiduciary duty and fraud because it valued the stock at $15 million.

Lees Inns requested the appointment of a special master or expert under the Dissenters' Rights Statute to help the court value the shares. The trial court denied the request and adopted one of the three valuation options offered by the parties at trial: the Deloitte Valuation that valued the minority shares at $5.9 million. The trial court also found Lester breached his fiduciary duties to the minority shareholders based on the benefits he received through corporate deals, including hefty raises and benefits on real estate deals.

The trial court didn't award interest on the eight years it took for the case to go to trial because the trust caused some of the delays.

The appellate court had to decide whether the determination of the fair value of the trust's shares of stock was supported by the evidence. Under the Dissenters' Rights Statute, "fair value" is defined as the value of the shares immediately before the sale. Because Indiana courts haven't outlined how to appraise these shares, the Court of Appeals followed the provisions of the Dissenters' Rights Statute and adopted the reasoning in Cede & Co. v. Technicolor, Inc., 684 A.2d 289, 298 (Del. 1996), to conclude it was appropriate for the parties' experts valuing Lees Inns to consider the company's future plans and prospects, including building or selling hotels, and to consider the potential impact that had on the value of Lees Inns as of the valuation date.

The Court of Appeals also affirmed Lester violated his fiduciary duty to Lees Inns, the trial court didn't abuse its discretion in denying the appointment of an expert, and the amount of interest awarded to the trust.

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Being on this journey from the beginning has convinced me the justice system really doesn't care about the welfare of the child. The trial court judge knew the child belonged with the mother. The father having total disregard for the rules of the court. Not only did this cost the mother and child valuable time together but thousands in legal fees. When the child was with the father the mother paid her child support. When the child was finally with the right parent somehow the father got away without having to pay one penny of child support. He had to be in control. Since he withheld all information regarding the child's welfare he put her in harms way. Mother took the child to the doctor when she got sick and was totally embarrassed she knew nothing regarding the medical information especially the allergies, The mother texted the father (from the doctors office) and he replied call his attorney. To me this doesn't seem like a concerned father. Seeing the child upset when she had to go back to the father. What upset me the most was finding out the child sleeps with him. Sometimes in the nude. Maybe I don't understand all the rules of the law but I thought this was also morally wrong. A concerned parent would allow the child to finish the school year. Say goodbye to her friends. It saddens me to know the child will not have contact with the sisters, aunts, uncles and the 87 year old grandfather. He didn't allow it before. Only the mother is allowed to talk to the child. I don't think now will be any different. I hope the decision the courts made would've been the same one if this was a member of their family. Someday this child will end up in therapy if allowed to remain with the father.

  2. Ok attorney Straw ... if that be a good idea ... And I am not saying it is ... but if it were ... would that be ripe prior to her suffering an embarrassing remand from the Seventh? Seems more than a tad premature here soldier. One putting on the armor should not boast liked one taking it off.

  3. The judge thinks that she is so cute to deny jurisdiction, but without jurisdiction, she loses her immunity. She did not give me any due process hearing or any discovery, like the Middlesex case provided for that lawyer. Because she has refused to protect me and she has no immunity because she rejected jurisdiction, I am now suing her in her district.

  4. Sam Bradbury was never a resident of Lafayette he lived in rural Tippecanoe County, Thats an error.

  5. Sam Bradbury was never a resident of Lafayette he lived in rural Tippecanoe County, Thats an error.

ADVERTISEMENT