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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Such things are no more elections than those in the late, unlamented Soviet Union.

  2. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  3. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  4. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  5. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

ADVERTISEMENT