Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Advanced Communication Design, Inc. v. Follett, 615 N.W.2d 285.

24 citing documents.

Edward B. Berkner, Trustee of Berkner Living Trust, et al., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
Advanced Commc’n Design, Inc. v. Follett
Charles Ward, et al., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
A district court “has broad discretion both in the process and the ultimate determination of the ‘fair value’ of the shares to be sold.” Advanced Commc’n Design, Inc. v. Follett
Tyrone Murphy, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
E.g., Advanced Commc’n Design, (observing that in the Minnesota Business Corporations Act, “the legislature has provided broad and flexible authority to the court to ‘grant any equitable relief it deems just and reasonable in the circumstances’” (quoting Minn. Stat. § 302A.751 (1998)).
U.S. Holdings, Inc., Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
“[A] majority or controlling shareholder owes a fiduciary duty to the corporation or its other shareholders.” Advanced Commc’n Design, Inc. v. Follett , –94 (Minn. 2000).
Absolute Sports Cards, LLC, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2024
-83 (Minn. App. 2019) (quoting Advanced Commc’n Design, ), rev. denied (Minn. Mar.
Powers Steel v. Vinton Steel Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Gerring Properties Inc., et al., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
In his report, the special master quoted the following language from Advanced Comm c’ns Design, Inc. v. Follett , in support of his conclusion : “Generally, ‘absent extraordinary circumstances, fair value in a court-ordered buy-out pursuant to 302A.751 means a pro rata share of the value of the corporation as a going concern without discount for lack of 7 marketability.’” He also disagreed with respondents’ contention
Lund v. Lund 924 N.W.2d 274 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Lund v. Lund 924 N.W.2d 274 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Advanced Commc'n Design, Inc. v. Follett , , 292 (Minn. 2000) (holding "fair value" generally means "pro rata share of the value of the corporation as a going concern without discount for lack of marketability," but applying marketability discount under "extraordinary circumstances" presented).
Damian Loth, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
The Minnesota Supreme Court has defined “fair valu e,” for the purpose of ordering a buy-out of corporate shares, as the “p ro rata share of the value of the corporation as a going 12 concern.” Advanced Commc’n Design, 2 The supreme court has held that, “[t]o determine fair value, the [district] court may rely on proof of value by any technique that is ge nerally accepted in the relevant financial community and should consider all relevant factors, but the value must be fair and equitable to all
Blum v. Thompson 901 N.W.2d 203 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Blum v. Thompson 901 N.W.2d 203 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Advanced Commc’n Design, -94 (Minn. 2000).
Robert Kagel v. Christian Brackey, Kagel Acquisition Company, LLC Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Robert Kagel v. Christian Brackey, Kagel Acquisition Company, LLC Minn. Ct. App. 2016
13 concern.” Advanced Commc’n Design, 3 In its May 2014 order, the district court found that “KAC is not operational.
Joy Folie v. Aging Joyfully, Inc. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Joy Folie v. Aging Joyfully, Inc. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
The Minnesota Supreme Court has held that “fair value, in ordering a buy-out under the [MBCA], means the pro rata share of the value of the corporation as a going concern.” Advanced Commc'n Design
Timothy E. Lewis v. Paul J. Borchert Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Timothy E. Lewis v. Paul J. Borchert Minn. Ct. App. 2015
U.S. Bank N. A. v. Cold Spring Granite Co. 802 N.W.2d 363 Minn. 2011
U.S. Bank N. A. v. Cold Spring Granite Co. 802 N.W.2d 363 Minn. 2011
See Advanced Commc’n Design, Inc., v. Follett, (ACD) (citing Fewell v. Tappan, 223 Minn. 483, 493-94 , Venier v. Forbes, 223 Minn. 69, 74 , ).
Brekke v. THM Biomedical, Inc. 683 N.W.2d 771 Minn. 2004
Brekke v. THM Biomedical, Inc. 683 N.W.2d 771 Minn. 2004
Advanced Communication Design, -94 (Minn.2000) (citing Fewell v. Tappan, 223 Minn. 483, 493-94 , ).
Rainforest Cafe, Inc. v. State Investment Board 677 N.W.2d 443 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
Rainforest Cafe, Inc. v. State Investment Board 677 N.W.2d 443 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
Advanced Communication Design