ILNews

COA split on whether company can repurchase stock

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A panel of Indiana Court of Appeals judges disagreed as to whether a company's attempt to exercise its option to repurchase stock had occurred in a timely manner under a shareholders' agreement.

The majority in Gatlin Plumbing & Heating Inc. v. Estate of Robert Yeager, No. 45A03-0907-CV-318, affirmed the denial of Gatlin's objection to the trial court order that directed the transfer of 63 shares of the company's capital stock held by the late Robert Yeager to his wife.

Under the shareholders' agreement for the company, Gatlin would have the option within 60 days after the death of a shareholder who isn't a decedent of Gatlin's owners or within 30 days after the appointment and qualification of an executor or administrator of the estate to purchase any or all of the stock. Robert died in October 2006; in June 2008, his widow, Musetta, filed an affidavit of entitlement saying Robert died testate but the will wasn't probated as the estate wasn't valued at more than $50,000, so the administration of the estate didn't occur. She also alleged the stock to be valued at $63,000. Musetta sought the transfer of the shares of stock to herself as trustee of two trusts. The trial court ordered the stock transferred to her.

Gatlin objected, arguing it should have had first opportunity to purchase the stock based on the shareholders' agreement. The trial court ruled against Gatlin, finding the company failed to exercise its legal rights in a timely manner.

Judges Carr Darden and James Kirsch found the shareholders' agreement didn't permit two separate opportunities for Gatlin to exercise its option to buy back its stock. They rejected the company's argument that the agreement let it exercise its second option to purchase stock after the trial court's issuance of the June 2008 order.

The majority also disagreed with Gatlin's argument that the trial court erred when it denied its objection to the order of transfer because averments within the estate's affidavit of entitlement as to the minimal value of the estate weren't supported by the evidence. When Gatlin filed its objection, it expressly asserted the amount of the estate's assets was under $50,000, wrote Judge Darden.

In addition, the company knew of Robert's death within days of it, its shareholders told Musetta in 2007 that it wouldn't buy the stock, and by the time the affidavits were filed in the estate in June 2008, the company hadn't taken any action to open an estate for purposes of asserting an interest in the stock, wrote the judge.

Judge Melissa May dissented, finding the majority's ruling would permit heirs to defeat the shareholders' agreement by delaying the opening of the estate for 60 days or more. Musetta's delay and apparent misrepresentation of the value of the estate shouldn't permit her to avoid the shareholders' agreement's provisions that say when Gatlin can purchase Robert's stock, she wrote.

Judge May would hold the company's 30-day period to exercise its option hadn't run because there hasn't yet been an appointment and qualification of an executor or administrator of the estate.

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Unfortunately, the court doesn't understand the difference between ebidta and adjusted ebidta as they clearly got the ruling wrong based on their misunderstanding

  2. 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.

  3. 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.

  4. 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/

  5. What form or who do I talk to about a d felony which I hear is classified as a 6 now? Who do I talk to. About to get my degree and I need this to go away it's been over 7 years if that helps.

ADVERTISEMENT