In the Matter of Douglas R. Prince and Jane Prince, Debtors-Appellants

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• finding that relief under Rule 59 was warranted when “the parties did not have sufficient indication prior to the hearing” that an issue would be relevant
• reviewing the “evidence in the record” brought to the district court’s attention in a Rule 59(e) motion although not finding abuse of discretion
• describing valuation of goodwill in context of assigning value to company stock
• “where market information is available, looking to the stock’s ‘fair mar ket value’ ” is “the most accurate representation of the present value of the stock’s future cash flows.”
• evidence not previously “available” where “the parties did not have sufficient indication” it was required and thus “were not given an opportunity to collect evidence bearing on the question”
• “[T]he bankruptcy court found virtually every issue of fact in this case to be undisputed and distilled the valuation down to one issue of law: whether Dr. Prince’s personal goodwill should be included in the calculation of the stock’s value.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).