ILNews

Holiday World family takes dispute to Court of Appeals

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

An agreement meant to keep a popular amusement park in the family has sparked a bitter dispute that has reached the Indiana Court of Appeals.

Attorneys representing Koch family members presented oral arguments Aug. 6 before the appellate court in Koch Development Corp. and Daniel L. Koch v. Lori A. Koch, as personal representative to the estate of William A. Koch, Jr., deceased, 82A-4-1212-PL-612.

The Koch family owns Holiday World & Splashin’ Safari near Evansville. Will Koch, grandson of the park’s founder Louis J. Koch, was the majority owner in partnership with his brother Dan Koch, an attorney in Florida.

After Will Koch’s sudden death on June 13, 2010, Dan Koch was elected president of the business and took over operations.

Lori Koch, Will’s widow, and Dan Koch are fighting over the share price of the business under terms of a buy-sell agreement the brothers had. Both sides told the court that the purpose of the agreement was to keep Holiday World in the Koch family.

At the end of oral arguments, Judge John Baker said that from his point of view the situation looks as if this is a fractured family and there is probably nothing the courts can do.
   
The buy-sell agreement in place at the time of Will Koch’s death dictated the sale of their respective shares in the family business. In this situation, Koch Development Corp. had to purchase as much of the decedent’s shares as the capital of the company would lawfully permit while the remaining shares were to be purchased by the surviving shareholders.

KDC tendered an offer of $5 million and Dan Koch made a separate offer which brought the total amount to just under $27 million.

Lori Koch rejected both offers, claiming her husband’s shares were worth more than $32.5 million. She pointed to the brothers’ agreement in 2009 that the price per share was $653.07. Dan Koch and KDC countered that the shares were worth $541.93 each.

In January 2011, Lori Koch filed suit.

The trial court entered a judgment in favor of the estate. It found that KDC’s and Dan Koch’s actions materially breached the buy-sell agreement and concluded the estate was permanently excused from the obligation to sell its shares to KDC and Dan Koch.

On appeal, Dan Koch argued the trial court should be reversed. He claims he and KDC did not materially breach the agreement and that the trial court erred in excusing the estate from selling Will Koch’s shares.

During oral arguments, the appeals court judges questioned the attorneys about the specifics of the buy-sell agreement and the intent of that agreement. Jim Johnson, partner at Rudolph Fine Porter & Johnson LLP, represented KDC and Dan Koch. Terry Farmer, managing partner at Bamberger Foreman Oswald & Hahn LLP, represented Lori Koch.

Judge Paul Mathias raised the 180-day time limit included in the agreement and questioned Johnson as to why Dan Koch waited until the 178th day to tender an offer.

Johnson replied his client was practicing law in Florida and Will Koch’s death put him in an unexpected position of running the park.

Mathias countered that Dan Koch is an attorney. Issues do not always come when it is convenient for the attorney, he said. When Dan Koch stepped into the leadership role at Holiday World, he had an obligation to meet in 180 days.

The judges also queried Farmer about the price Lori Koch is arguing each share is worth. Farmer explained that was the price agreed upon by the shareholders on Jan. 1, 2009.

Baker asked, since he had bought a Buick in 1974 for $3,500, was the automaker obligated to sell him another car at the same price?

Farmer explained that every two years the shareholders set the pricing mechanism within the agreement. The price of $653.07 agreed upon in Jan. 2009 would govern.
 

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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  2. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  3. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  4. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

  5. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

ADVERTISEMENT