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.


Post a comment to this story

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
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I think the cops are doing a great job locking up criminals. The Murder rates in the inner cities are skyrocketing and you think that too any people are being incarcerated. Maybe we need to lock up more of them. We have the ACLU, BLM, NAACP, Civil right Division of the DOJ, the innocent Project etc. We have court system with an appeal process that can go on for years, with attorneys supplied by the government. I'm confused as to how that translates into the idea that the defendants are not being represented properly. Maybe the attorneys need to do more Pro-Bono work

  2. We do not have 10% of our population (which would mean about 32 million) incarcerated. It's closer to 2%.

  3. If a class action suit or other manner of retribution is possible, count me in. I have email and voicemail from the man. He colluded with opposing counsel, I am certain. My case was damaged so severely it nearly lost me everything and I am still paying dearly.

  4. There's probably a lot of blame that can be cast around for Indiana Tech's abysmal bar passage rate this last February. The folks who decided that Indiana, a state with roughly 16,000 to 18,000 attorneys, needs a fifth law school need to question the motives that drove their support of this project. Others, who have been "strong supporters" of the law school, should likewise ask themselves why they believe this institution should be supported. Is it because it fills some real need in the state? Or is it, instead, nothing more than a resume builder for those who teach there part-time? And others who make excuses for the students' poor performance, especially those who offer nothing more than conspiracy theories to back up their claims--who are they helping? What evidence do they have to support their posturing? Ultimately, though, like most everything in life, whether one succeeds or fails is entirely within one's own hands. At least one student from Indiana Tech proved this when he/she took and passed the February bar. A second Indiana Tech student proved this when they took the bar in another state and passed. As for the remaining 9 who took the bar and didn't pass (apparently, one of the students successfully appealed his/her original score), it's now up to them (and nobody else) to ensure that they pass on their second attempt. These folks should feel no shame; many currently successful practicing attorneys failed the bar exam on their first try. These same attorneys picked themselves up, dusted themselves off, and got back to the rigorous study needed to ensure they would pass on their second go 'round. This is what the Indiana Tech students who didn't pass the first time need to do. Of course, none of this answers such questions as whether Indiana Tech should be accredited by the ABA, whether the school should keep its doors open, or, most importantly, whether it should have even opened its doors in the first place. Those who promoted the idea of a fifth law school in Indiana need to do a lot of soul-searching regarding their decisions. These same people should never be allowed, again, to have a say about the future of legal education in this state or anywhere else. Indiana already has four law schools. That's probably one more than it really needs. But it's more than enough.

  5. This man Steve Hubbard goes on any online post or forum he can find and tries to push his company. He said court reporters would be obsolete a few years ago, yet here we are. How does he have time to search out every single post about court reporters and even spy in private court reporting forums if his company is so successful???? Dude, get a life. And back to what this post was about, I agree that some national firms cause a huge problem.