Opinion ID: 4536072
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: facts

Text: BD is a construction company operated out of Kearney, Nebraska. At all times relevant to this litigation, BD had three shareholders: Mark W. Benjamin, who was a director and president and owned 59 percent of the shares; Doug, a director who owned 25 percent of the shares; and Jim, also a director, who owned 16 percent of the shares. The three entered into a buy-sell agreement on September 29, 2009, which provided for the sale and purchase of BD shares in a variety of scenarios. Mark died on April 14, 2015. On May 26, Brenda was appointed to serve as president of BD, but Doug ran the company on a day-to-day basis. On April 20, 2016, Brenda terminated the employment of Doug and Jim. On May 6, Doug and Jim filed this lawsuit against Brenda and BD, initially seeking specific performance of the buy-sell agreement, an accounting, and the appointment of new officers and directors. Doug and Jim also sought damages for wrongful termination and breach of fiduciary duty. Prior to trial, Doug and Jim filed a motion for summary judgment seeking a finding that the buy-sell agreement was enforceable. The district court granted summary judgment to Doug and Jim on that issue. The court reserved for trial the issue of the value of BD. Following trial, the district court valued BD, as of the date of Mark’s death, at $3.8 million, with Mark’s 59-percent interest valued at $2.242 million. In addition, the district court found that Brenda breached her fiduciary duty to BD and its shareholders in various ways. In accordance with the preceding findings, the district court awarded Brenda $1,703,197.79 for Mark’s interest in BD. Brenda appeals, and Doug and Jim cross-appeal. ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR On appeal, Brenda alleges that the district court erred in (1) granting partial summary judgment finding the buy-sell agreement enforceable; (2) finding that she acted in bad faith, - 863 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 305 Nebraska Reports BIERMAN v. BENJAMIN Cite as 305 Neb. 860 finding that she breached her fiduciary duties, and in removing her as a director and officer of BD; (3) not admitting testimony from Brenda’s advisors regarding the good faith and reasonableness of the process utilized to set bonuses and of Brenda’s review of applicable industry standards; (4) setting the value of Mark’s shares, both because April 14, 2015, the date of Mark’s death, bore no relationship to the value of BD and because life insurance proceeds received by BD on Mark’s life were excluded; and (5) allowing a certified public accountant to testify regarding bonuses and compensation, because he was not qualified as an expert. On cross-appeal, Doug and Jim assign that the district court erred in (1) reducing their damage award by 59 percent as to the distribution of bonuses, (2) failing to reinstate the debt or receivables owed to BD by Brenda and the estate, and (3) not awarding them attorney fees.