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

Streck, Inc., a corporation founded by Dr. Wayne L. Ryan, faced a shareholder oppression suit filed by the Wayne L. Ryan Revocable Trust (RRT) seeking dissolution; the RRT owned significant voting and nonvoting shares.
Streck timely elected under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 21-20,166 to purchase the RRT’s shares rather than dissolve; the district court stayed the dissolution and limited proceedings to determining fair value.
The district court granted cross-motions for partial summary judgment: it held the election valid and limited the only remaining issue to determining the fair value of the RRT’s shares.
Stacy Ryan (a former shareholder and ERRT income beneficiary) earlier attempted to intervene and was denied. Later, Stacy and three adult children (intervenors), income beneficiaries of the Eileen Ryan Revocable Trust (ERRT), filed a second complaint in intervention challenging the validity of Streck’s election and alleging the election would dilute ERRT beneficiaries’ interests.
The district court struck the second complaint in intervention as untimely, concluding the intervenors had only an indirect interest and were trying to relitigate issues already decided by summary judgment; the intervenors appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Jurisdiction to appeal order denying intervention	Intervenors treated denial as appealable	Streck argued order wasn’t final under § 25-1315	Court held order denying intervention is final and appealable; appellate jurisdiction exists
Right to statutory intervention under § 25-328	Intervenors claimed direct legal interest as ERRT income beneficiaries affected by purchase of RRT shares	Streck/Connie argued intervenors only had indirect, conjectural interest (not shareholders) and remaining issue was fair value only	Court held intervenors lacked the required direct legal interest; their interest was indirect and insufficient for intervention
Timeliness / relitigation	Intervenors argued they should be allowed to challenge the prior summary-judgment ruling on the election’s validity	Defendants argued summary judgment already decided election validity; intervention to relitigate is untimely and impermissible	Court held intervenors sought to relitigate issues already determined and intervention was properly denied as untimely/futile
Equitable intervention	Intervenors suggested equitable intervention could be allowed (raised on appeal)	Defendants relied on statutory framework and prior determinations	Court declined to consider equitable intervention because it was not pleaded or argued below; appellate review limited to issues presented to trial court

Ruzicka v. Ruzicka, 262 Neb. 824 (discusses limits of intervention and issues an intervenor may raise)
Spear T Ranch v. Knaub, 271 Neb. 578 (2006) (sets requirement that intervenor must have direct legal interest)
Trainum v. Sutherland Assocs., 263 Neb. 778 (2002) (appellate review of questions of law; jurisdiction considerations)
Basin Elec. Power Co-op v. Little Blue N.R.D., 219 Neb. 372 (1985) (treats finality of orders denying intervention)
Arizona v. California, 460 U.S. 605 (1983) (principle that intervention does not permit relitigation of already-decided matters)