Skip to main content
DRAFT FOR ATTORNEY REVIEW — NOT FINAL

Gomez v. Independence Management of Delaware, Inc., 967 A.2d 1276 (2009)

Citation
Gomez v. Independence Management of Delaware, Inc., 967 A.2d 1276 (2009)
Parent Document
Gomez v. Independence Management of Delaware, Inc., 967 A.2d 1276 (2009)
Jurisdiction
DC (municipal)
Effective Date
2009-03-26

Other Sections in This Document (161)

Full Text

847 chars
the transfer here clearly was not conducted “for the purposes of estate planning, tax restructuring, limiting liability, or general property management.” Alem admitted that “the major reason” for structuring the transaction as a stock sale was to avoid having to make an offer of sale to the tenants. Thai also understood the stock purchase to be necessary because “the seller did not want to go through [the] tenant[s].” There was arms’ length bargaining over the price and the structure of the deal. Moreover, IMC did not retain control of the property. Control was transferred to Thai, and ownership followed shortly thereafter. Finally, the entire transaction was contemplated by, and carried out in accordance with, the Stock Sale Agreement, which spelled out the obligations of the parties. Our holding in Wallasey does not assist appellees.