[brief] The Parties then each employed their own accountants to do so as well.  During [...]’s investigation and analysis, he reviewed [...]’s financial records and confirmed that, after Plaintiffs took over management, they had voted to require [...] to “reimburse” their individual legal fees in this action and converted their own fee obligations to a “long term liability” of the company.  (Pa2869;Pa2942-2943) (5T187:2-188:1) (5T189:22-25) (6T244:12-23) (7T5:4-6:1) (7T125:8-10)  [...] testified that, as of the 2018 valuation date, [...]’s books showed a $2.8 million “long term liability” attributed mainly to Plaintiffs’ legal fees in this action.  (6T244:12-245:8)(5T189:22-25(7T32:6-13)(7T125:9-10)(7T22:4-25:22(7T28:6-23)  [...]’s own expert, [...], CPA (“[...]”) also confirmed that, as of the 2018 valuation date, [...]’s book value and net asset value were reduced by the $2.8 million obligation that Plaintiffs had created to reimburse their personal legal fees in this case.  (8T216:19-20)(9T65:20-66:22)(9T37:24-38:15)  He confirmed the Plaintiffs had voted to create that company-wide expense and liability, and placed a $3,389,000 “long-term liability” on [...]’s books all at once, and the “majority” was for Plaintiffs’ legal fees.  (8T58:14-60:18)  (8T79:4-5)  (8T217:1-218:3)(9T124:19-125:4)(9T126:7-10)  He even admitted that the fees had not actually been reimbursed, just booked as a company obligation.  (9T38:4-5)  Therefore, [...] and [...] both confirmed that the net equity of [...] as a whole had been reduced, “dollar for dollar”, by Plaintiffs’ individual legal fees, which Plaintiffs’ new majority had voted to have [...] “reimburse”.  (Pa2869)(7T33:10-34:8)(6T209:12)  (9T69:18-70:15)  Both experts also confirmed that net value of [...]’s interests, also had been reduced “dollar for dollar” by his adversaries’ personal legal fees pro rata to his ownership interest.  (7T39:12-15)(9T60:1-17(9T107:23-108:6)(8T217:13-15)(7T43:18-44:23) (Pa2840) (Pa2842)  [...] and [...] also agreed that if Plaintiffs’ $2.8 million legal fees were not allowed to count as [...]’s valid “long term liability”, then the company’s book value for 2018, increased from $4,068,000 to $6,897,000.  (7T35:6-36:14(9T:154:20-155:7) (9T155:24-156:23) (Pa2840) (Pa2842) (9T58:14-60:18)  Both experts also confirmed that, without Plaintiffs’ legal fees counting as a valid ‘company’ liability, their opinions “Net Asset Value” opinion increased ‘dollar for dollar’.  Specifically, [...] confirmed his opinion of [...]’s 2018 Net Asset Value would increase from $6,232,073 to $9,061,545.  (9T:84:20-85:3)(Pa2849)(9T60:1-18)(9T70:9-15)  [...] confirmed his opinion that [...]’s Net Asset Value increased to $9,106,577 if the Court did not allow Plaintiffs to make their legal fees a company liability.  (7T34:23-38:2)(Pa2840)  Since [...] is [...]’s largest member, [...] and [...] both confirmed that Plaintiffs’ vote to require [...] to “reimburse” their legal fees had shifted 29.5% of their $2.8 million in legal fees incurred in this action ($826,000) to [...] by devaluing his equity interest through the artificially increased “liability” on the company books. \(^2\) (9T59:22-60:18)(9T68:16-69:25)  [...] actually had zero “long term liabilities” on its books before the Plaintiffs’ change of control.  (9T123:15-18) (Pa2942-2943)  The Plaintiffs therefore used their majority control to create a ‘corporate’ liability for their personal legal fees, and in doing so charged [...] 29.5% of those fees incurred in this action.  (7T216:19-21)  (9T124:9-125:6)  After the valuation hearing the Parties submitted written arguments and proposed findings of fact but no oral argument occurred.