Indiana Supreme Court won't hear Lee's Inns dispute

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
On The Beat Industry News In Brief

A long-running legal battle among members of the Lee family of North Vernon over the valuation of their hotel chain has come to an end.

In August, the Indiana Supreme Court declined to consider an appeal from Lee’s Inns of America Inc., which is controlled by founder Lester Lee. That means an earlier judgment in favor of Lester Lee’s nephews, Donald and Robert, will be upheld.

The nephews’ attorney, David Wright at Kroger Gardis and Regas, said the case is important for business because it modernizes the law with respect to valuation of corporate shares.

Lester Lee had contested a Jennings Circuit Court ruling that the closely held company was worth $12.2 million, based on an accounting that factored in the potential expansion or sale of the 21-hotel chain. Lester Lee, who held 51.6 percent of the shares, argued the court should have used a valuation of $1.9 million, based on the fact that the chain was deeply in debt and unprofitable in 2000.

Lee’s nephews countered he’d breached his fiduciary duty by receiving excess compensation, charging unreasonable rent for office property that he owned personally, and by borrowing from the company at overly low interest rates.

The family came to legal blows in 2000, after Lee proposed a merger that would have eliminated the trust of his late brother, William, as a shareholder. The dispute was over how the trust shares would be valued. Lee had already ousted the nephews from the company in 1998.


Post a comment to this story

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 IBJ 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

Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
Subscribe to IBJ
  1. The $104K to CRC would go toward debts service on $486M of existing debt they already have from other things outside this project. Keystone buys the bonds for 3.8M from CRC, and CRC in turn pays for the parking and site work, and some time later CRC buys them back (with interest) from the projected annual property tax revenue from the entire TIF district (est. $415K / yr. from just this property, plus more from all the other property in the TIF district), which in theory would be about a 10-year term, give-or-take. CRC is basically betting on the future, that property values will increase, driving up the tax revenue to the limit of the annual increase cap on commercial property (I think that's 3%). It should be noted that Keystone can't print money (unlike the Federal Treasury) so commercial property tax can only come from consumers, in this case the apartment renters and consumers of the goods and services offered by the ground floor retailers, and employees in the form of lower non-mandatory compensation items, such as bonuses, benefits, 401K match, etc.

  2. $3B would hurt Lilly's bottom line if there were no insurance or Indemnity Agreement, but there is no way that large an award will be upheld on appeal. What's surprising is that the trial judge refused to reduce it. She must have thought there was evidence of a flagrant, unconscionable coverup and wanted to send a message.

  3. As a self-employed individual, I always saw outrageous price increases every year in a health insurance plan with preexisting condition costs -- something most employed groups never had to worry about. With spouse, I saw ALL Indiana "free market answer" plans' premiums raise 25%-45% each year.

  4. It's not who you chose to build it's how they build it. Architects and engineers decide how and what to use to build. builders just do the work. Architects & engineers still think the tarp over the escalators out at airport will hold for third time when it snows, ice storms.

  5. http://www.abcactionnews.com/news/duke-energy-customers-angry-about-money-for-nothing