{"id":3191,"date":"2015-07-01T12:50:14","date_gmt":"2015-07-01T16:50:14","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/resources.evans-legal.com\/?p=3191"},"modified":"2016-01-21T23:18:38","modified_gmt":"2016-01-22T04:18:38","slug":"interpretation-of-shareholders-agreement-for-valuation-of-company-in-account","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/resources.evans-legal.com\/?p=3191","title":{"rendered":"Interpretation of Shareholders Agreement for Valuation of Company in Account"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>Executor filed an account valuing two closely held companies by its market value, which means a willing seller to a willing buyer; objectors, two of four residuary beneficiaries, claimed that the shareholder agreement specified a pro rata valuation, meaning dividing the companies&#8217; values by the amount of shares; and the court held that the shareholders agreement was ambiguous, allowing parole evidence, and confirmed the account, because the evidence indicated that the &#8220;market value&#8221; specified in the shareholders agreement incorporated market variables, such as marketability and controlling interest.\u00a0 <em>Bittner Estate<\/em>, 5 Fid. Rep. 3d 242 (OC Bedford 2014) (Opinion by Livengood, J.), <em>aff&#8217;d<\/em> <a href=\"http:\/\/www.pacourts.us\/assets\/opinions\/Superior\/out\/J-A27021-15m.pdf\" target=\"_blank\">No. 1847 WDA 2014<\/a> (Pa. Super. 1\/29\/2016).<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Executor filed an account valuing two closely held companies by its market value, which means a willing seller to a willing buyer; objectors, two of four residuary beneficiaries, claimed that the shareholder agreement specified a pro rata valuation, meaning dividing &hellip; <a class=\"more-link\" href=\"https:\/\/resources.evans-legal.com\/?p=3191\">Continue reading <span class=\"meta-nav\">&rarr;<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":5,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"pmpro_default_level":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[34],"tags":[446,449,448,447,445],"class_list":["post-3191","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-opinions","tag-ambiguity","tag-closely-held-business","tag-market-value","tag-parole-evidence","tag-shareholder-agreement","pmpro-has-access"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/resources.evans-legal.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3191","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/resources.evans-legal.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/resources.evans-legal.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/resources.evans-legal.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/5"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/resources.evans-legal.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=3191"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"https:\/\/resources.evans-legal.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3191\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":3720,"href":"https:\/\/resources.evans-legal.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3191\/revisions\/3720"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/resources.evans-legal.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=3191"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/resources.evans-legal.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=3191"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/resources.evans-legal.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=3191"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}