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. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  2. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  3. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  4. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

  5. Here's an idea...how about we MORE heavily regulate the law schools to reduce the surplus of graduates, driving starting salaries up for those new grads, so that we can all pay our insane amount of student loans off in a reasonable amount of time and then be able to afford to do pro bono & low-fee work? I've got friends in other industries, radiology for example, and their schools accept a very limited number of students so there will never be a glut of new grads and everyone's pay stays high. For example, my radiologist friend's school accepted just six new students per year.

ADVERTISEMENT