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. 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