Koch development Corporation and Daniel L. Koch v. Lori A. Koch, as presonal representative to the estate of William A. Koch, Jr., deceased - 8/6/13

Back to TopPrintE-mail
Tuesday  August 6, 2013 
11:00 AM  EST

11 a.m. 82A04-1212-PL-612. Daniel L. Koch (“Dan”) and William A. Koch, Jr. (“Will”) entered into a shareholders’ buy-sell agreement that governed the sale of their respective shares in the family business, Koch Development Corp (“KDC”).  Pursuant to this agreement, upon the death of a shareholder, KDC was called upon to purchase as much of the decedent’s shares as the capital of the company would lawfully permit. To the extent that KDC could not purchase all of the decedent’s shares, the surviving shareholders were called upon to purchase the remaining shares.  While this agreement was in place, Will died.  Thereafter, KDC tendered a $5,000,000 offer to purchase a portion of Will’s shares, and Daniel tendered a separate offer to purchase the remaining shares.  Lori A. Koch (“Lori”), Will’s widow and the personal representative of Will’s estate (“the Estate”), rejected both offers.  The Estate then filed an action seeking a declaratory judgment that the KDC and Dan had breached the buy-sell agreement and that the Estate had the right to keep Will’s shares of KDC because KDC’s offer was insufficient in light of the corporation’s capitalization and that Dan’s offer was insufficient because it was not based on a share price previously agreed upon by the shareholders.  KDC and Dan filed a counter-claim seeking specific performance of the agreement.  The trial court entered judgment in favor of the Estate, finding that KDC and Dan’s actions materially breached the buy-sell agreement and concluding that the Estate was the owner of Will’s shares of KDC and was permanently excused from its obligation to sell its shares to KDC and Dan.  Dan appeals and claims that: (1) KDC and Dan did not materially breach the agreement; and (2) the trial court clearly erred in concluding that the Estate was excused from its obligation to sell Will’s shares of KDC. 

Back to Events
Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Indianapolis employers harassment among minorities AFRICAN Americans needs to be discussed the metro Indianapolis area is horrible when it comes to harassing African American employees especially in the local healthcare facilities. Racially profiling in the workplace is an major issue. Please make it better because I'm many civil rights leaders would come here and justify that Indiana is a state the WORKS only applies to Caucasian Americans especially in Hamilton county. Indiana targets African Americans in the workplace so when governor pence is trying to convince people to vote for him this would be awesome publicity for the Presidency Elections.

  2. Wishing Mary Willis only God's best, and superhuman strength, as she attempts to right a ship that too often strays far off course. May she never suffer this personal affect, as some do who attempt to change a broken system: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QojajMsd2nE

  3. Indiana's seatbelt law is not punishable as a crime. It is an infraction. Apparently some of our Circuit judges have deemed settled law inapplicable if it fails to fit their litmus test of political correctness. Extrapolating to redefine terms of behavior in a violation of immigration law to the entire body of criminal law leaves a smorgasbord of opportunity for judicial mischief.

  4. I wonder if $10 diversions for failure to wear seat belts are considered moral turpitude in federal immigration law like they are under Indiana law? Anyone know?

  5. What a fine article, thank you! I can testify firsthand and by detailed legal reports (at end of this note) as to the dire consequences of rejecting this truth from the fine article above: "The inclusion and expansion of this right [to jury] in Indiana’s Constitution is a clear reflection of our state’s intention to emphasize the importance of every Hoosier’s right to make their case in front of a jury of their peers." Over $20? Every Hoosier? Well then how about when your very vocation is on the line? How about instead of a jury of peers, one faces a bevy of political appointees, mini-czars, who care less about due process of the law than the real czars did? Instead of trial by jury, trial by ideological ordeal run by Orwellian agents? Well that is built into more than a few administrative law committees of the Ind S.Ct., and it is now being weaponized, as is revealed in articles posted at this ezine, to root out post moderns heresies like refusal to stand and pledge allegiance to all things politically correct. My career was burned at the stake for not so saluting, but I think I was just one of the early logs. Due, at least in part, to the removal of the jury from bar admission and bar discipline cases, many more fires will soon be lit. Perhaps one awaits you, dear heretic? Oh, at that Ind. article 12 plank about a remedy at law for every damage done ... ah, well, the founders evidently meant only for those damages done not by the government itself, rabid statists that they were. (Yes, that was sarcasm.) My written reports available here: Denied petition for cert (this time around): http://tinyurl.com/zdmawmw Denied petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): http://tinyurl.com/zcypybh Related, not written by me: Amicus brief: http://tinyurl.com/hvh7qgp

ADVERTISEMENT