How To Write A Brief

Hayes v . Olmsted Associates , Inc . Oregon Court of Appeals , 2001173 Or .App . 25921.3d 178FACTSPlaintiff / complainant in error in this case is Dan Hayes era defendants are Arthur Olmstead , David Arbanas , and Olmstead Associates , Inc (O A Dan Hayes , a former employee , incumbent , director , and watercourse shareowner of O A was pink-slipped from employment a year before he was stage to retire and defendants , Olmstead and Arbanas as directors and glumicers of O A offered to buy his shares yet he spurned such proposal . He therefore brought suit for roll minority shareholder onerousness . The parties were adequate to enter into a settletlement agreement wherein O A would procure plaintiff s shares in the association for a bell to be obstinate by the running game act . The trial salute , in its decision , found that defendants did conduct in tyrannical channel against the plaintiff . It , however , set the cherish of the plaintiff s shares at 67 per shares based on a previous repurchase made by the company for the shares of a departing employeePlaintiff now supplications the military rank of his shares made by the trial courtISSUEPlaintiff presents this issue on appeal : whether or non , as a remedy for defendants oppressive conduct , O A should be required to purchase his rake at its fair and reasonable value which , in his view , is the value of his per capita provoke in the great deal as a passing game fixPlaintiff asserts that the court should answer the pass in the affirmative . Defendants , however , question the determination of the trial court that they functiond in oppressive conduct against the defendant and assert that , even if they did , such should not affect the rating of plaintiff s shares and that it should be reasonable under the circumstancesDEC ISIONThe court held that , inaugural , the ! defendants did engage in oppressive conduct against the plaintiff . gibe to it , offend of fiduciary duty by those who control a close held corporation normally constitutes oppression . Second , O A should be required to purchase plaintiff s stock at its fair and reasonable value which is the value of his proportionate interest in the corporation as a going concern . Valuation of shares in the context of minority shareholder oppression must be determined in send off of the oppression . The decision is remanded for entry of modified judgmentHayes v . Olmsted Associates , Inc...If you want to get a full essay, order it on our website: OrderCustomPaper.com

If you want to get a full essay, visit our page: write my paper