ILNews

Brother in Holiday World dispute still fighting for ownership

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The family battle over the southern Indiana amusement park, Holiday World and Splashin’ Safari, could be moving to the Indiana Supreme Court.

Attorneys representing Dan Koch filed a petition to transfer Dec. 5. They argue under a “legitimate reading” of the agreement between the park’s shareholders and the estate of the William Koch Jr., the estate is only entitled payment for William Koch’s shares and cannot be the majority shareholder.

The Koch Development Corp.’s 2002 share purchase and security agreement required the corporation to buy all the shares of common stock whenever a shareholder died. After Will, then the majority owner, passed away in June 2010, his brother, Dan, became owner and operator of Holiday World.

Dan subsequently tendered an offer of $26.9 million for Will’s majority shares. However, Will’s widow charged that Dan had undervalued the shares and the actual purchase price is $32.1 million.

In October, the Indiana Court of Appeals found Dan and KDC materially breached the agreement and, therefore, the estate did not have to sell Will’s shares.     

Petitioning for transfer, Dan asserted the Court of Appeals improperly relied on the “first party to breach” doctrine. He argued this doctrine has been repealed by the adoption of Section 242 of the Restatement (Second) of Contracts which expressly calls for contracts to be enforced even when there has been a material breach.

“Under no reasonable interpretation of the Court of Appeals’ Opinion did the court enforce the Agreement,” Dan’s petition stated. “Instead, relying on the ‘first party to breach’ doctrine, the court rewrote the Agreement to provide extra-contractual relief to the Estate, contrary to the expectations of the parties.”

In addition, Dan faulted estate’s continued assertion that he failed to act within the 180-day period imposed by the agreement. He stated that the estate’s position is unfounded and runs counter to Indiana law.

Dan concluded that Indiana law requires the estate to sell Will’s share to him and KDC.

“To rule otherwise, allowing the Estate to keep Will’s stock – and thus majority ownership in KDC – would defeat the clear expectations of the parties of the Agreement and, contrary to the Estate’s position, would grant it an unlawful windfall, because under no legitimate reading of the Agreement is the Estate entitled to anything other than the purchase price of Will’s shares,” the petition states.



 

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. Whilst it may be true that Judges and Justices enjoy such freedom of time and effort, it certainly does not hold true for the average working person. To say that one must 1) take a day or a half day off work every 3 months, 2) gather a list of information including recent photographs, and 3) set up a time that is convenient for the local sheriff or other such office to complete the registry is more than a bit near-sighted. This may be procedural, and hence, in the near-sighted minds of the court, not 'punishment,' but it is in fact 'punishment.' The local sheriffs probably feel a little punished too by the overwork. Registries serve to punish the offender whilst simultaneously providing the public at large with a false sense of security. The false sense of security is dangerous to the public who may not exercise due diligence by thinking there are no offenders in their locale. In fact, the registry only informs them of those who have been convicted.

  2. Unfortunately, the court doesn't understand the difference between ebidta and adjusted ebidta as they clearly got the ruling wrong based on their misunderstanding

  3. A common refrain in the comments on this website comes from people who cannot locate attorneys willing put justice over retainers. At the same time the judiciary threatens to make pro bono work mandatory, seemingly noting the same concern. But what happens to attorneys who have the chumptzah to threatened the legal status quo in Indiana? Ask Gary Welch, ask Paul Ogden, ask me. Speak truth to power, suffer horrendously accordingly. No wonder Hoosier attorneys who want to keep in good graces merely chase the dollars ... the powers that be have no concerns as to those who are ever for sale to the highest bidder ... for those even willing to compromise for $$$ never allow either justice or constitutionality to cause them to stand up to injustice or unconstitutionality. And the bad apples in the Hoosier barrel, like this one, just keep rotting.

  4. I am one of Steele's victims and was taken for $6,000. I want my money back due to him doing nothing for me. I filed for divorce after a 16 year marriage and lost everything. My kids, my home, cars, money, pension. Every attorney I have talked to is not willing to help me. What can I do? I was told i can file a civil suit but you have to have all of Steelers info that I don't have. Of someone can please help me or tell me what info I need would be great.

  5. It would appear that news breaking on Drudge from the Hoosier state (link below) ties back to this Hoosier story from the beginning of the recent police disrespect period .... MCBA president Cassandra Bentley McNair issued the statement on behalf of the association Dec. 1. The association said it was “saddened and disappointed” by the decision not to indict Ferguson police officer Darren Wilson for shooting Michael Brown. “The MCBA does not believe this was a just outcome to this process, and is disheartened that the system we as lawyers are intended to uphold failed the African-American community in such a way,” the association stated. “This situation is not just about the death of Michael Brown, but the thousands of other African-Americans who are disproportionately targeted and killed by police officers.” http://www.thestarpress.com/story/news/local/2016/07/18/hate-cops-sign-prompts-controversy/87242664/

ADVERTISEMENT