Wayne L. Ryan Revocable Trust v. Ryan, 297 Neb. 761

Streck, Inc., a corporation founded by Dr. Wayne L. Ryan, faced a dissolution suit filed in Oct 2014 by the Wayne L. Ryan Revocable Trust (RRT), which owned voting and nonvoting stock; Connie Ryan (Dr. Ryan’s daughter) is Streck’s CEO and majority voting shareholder.
Streck invoked Neb. Rev. Stat. § 21-20,166 to elect to purchase the RRT’s shares instead of allowing dissolution; the court stayed the dissolution and limited proceedings to determining the fair value of the RRT’s shares.
The district court granted cross-motions for partial summary judgment: (1) discounts would not be applied to fair value, and (2) Streck’s election to purchase the RRT shares was valid; only fair-value determination remained.
Stacy Ryan (a former shareholder and ERRT income beneficiary) first sought to intervene in June 2015 asserting claims about her own share redemption; that intervention was denied (no appeal).
In May 2016 Stacy and four adult children (intervenors) filed a second complaint in intervention seeking to challenge the validity of Streck’s election and to relitigate the summary-judgment ruling; the district court struck the complaint as untimely, showing only indirect interest, and seeking to relitigate settled issues.
The Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed, holding intervenors sought to relitigate matters already decided and lacked the requisite direct legal interest in the remaining issue (fair value).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the order denying intervention is appealable	Intervenors treated denial as appealable	Streck argued order was not final under § 25-1315	Court: Order denying intervention is a final, appealable order
Whether intervenors had statutory right to intervene under § 25-328	Intervenors claimed direct legal interest as ERRT income beneficiaries harmed by dilution if election upheld	Streck/Connie argued intervenors only had indirect/remote interest and were not shareholders; remaining issue was fair value	Court: Intervenors lacked the requisite direct and legal interest; statutory intervention denied
Whether intervention was untimely	Intervenors contended they could timely intervene to challenge election validity	Streck/Connie noted summary judgment on election had already been entered and intervenors waited too long	Court: Intervention untimely; intervenors must take case as they find it and cannot relitigate decided issues
Whether equitable intervention should have been allowed	Intervenors suggested equitable relief could permit intervention (argued on appeal)	Defendants argued intervenors never raised equitable intervention below	Court: Equitable intervention not argued/decided below; issue not considered on appeal

Ruzicka v. Ruzicka, 262 Neb. 824, 635 N.W.2d 528 (Neb. 2001) (intervention claims must involve the same core issue)
Spear T Ranch v. Knaub, 271 Neb. 578, 713 N.W.2d 489 (Neb. 2006) (intervenor must have direct legal interest that will be affected by judgment)
School Dist. of Gering v. Stannard, 196 Neb. 367, 242 N.W.2d 889 (Neb. 1976) (an intervenor takes the suit as found and is bound by prior determinations)
Drainage Dist. v. Kirkpatrick-Pettis Co., 140 Neb. 530, 300 N.W. 582 (Neb. 1941) (intervenor cannot relitigate matters already decided)
Arizona v. California, 460 U.S. 605 (U.S. 1983) (preclusion against relitigation in intervention contexts)