Former Partner Sued Carnegie Investment Counsel
David Laidlaw filed a lawsuit on August 7 alleging that firm executives manipulated earnings to lower his buyout valuation.
Updated on Sept. 29, 2026 in Corporate Finance
Live Poll
Should minority owners of private companies have a legal right to inspect internal financial records?
David K. Laidlaw, a former partner, sued Cleveland-based Carnegie Investment Counsel on August 7 in the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas. The suit claims company leadership manipulated earnings and diverted funds to reduce the payout owed for his retirement.
Why it matters
The legal battle highlights a dispute over the valuation of partnership units following Laidlaw's retirement notice. Laidlaw alleges that executives obscured the firm's true financial health to minimize his mandated buyout payment.
The firm reports $7.5 billion in regulatory assets under management across 8,541 customer accounts. Laidlaw, who held 4.7 of the firm's 109 Class A units, alleges that $2.2 million in incentive fees were diverted during 2026.
The players
David K. Laidlaw
He is a former partner at Carnegie Investment Counsel who holds 4.7 of the firm's 109 Class A units.
Carnegie Investment Counsel
This Cleveland-based firm manages $7.5 billion in regulatory assets and operates with 69 employees.
Richard L. Alt
He is an executive at Carnegie Investment Counsel named as a defendant in the lawsuit.
Gary P. Wagner
He is an executive at Carnegie Investment Counsel named as a defendant in the lawsuit.
The details
Laidlaw alleges that executives Richard L. Alt and Gary P. Wagner billed personal expenses, including private jet travel, to the firm. He further claims the firm ignored his requests for books and records made on May 12, May 28, and June 17, 2026.
Timeline
Carnegie acquired Eagle Ridge Investment Management in February 2025.
Laidlaw gave formal notice of his planned retirement on April 27, 2026.
The firm claims the valuation date for the buyout was May 31, 2026.
Carnegie filed its latest Form ADV on July 9, 2026.
The lawsuit was filed in the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas on August 7, 2026.
Market Dynamics
The lawsuit centers on internal disputes over financial transparency that often surface following the filing of the SEC Form ADV disclosure requirements. This case underscores the conflict between partnership buyout agreements and the broader pressures of corporate valuation.
The dispute may raise questions for the firm's 8,541 customer accounts regarding the stability of management. Clients should monitor whether these internal legal proceedings affect the firm's operations or long-term management strategy.
The takeaway
This case illustrates the critical importance of clearly defined buyout clauses in partnership agreements to prevent disputes upon a partner's departure. Investors and partners should ensure that all financial reporting is transparent and documented to avoid potential litigation.
Further reading
For more information on the industry standards governing firm valuation, see Corporate Finance.
Live Poll
Should minority owners of private companies have a legal right to inspect internal financial records?
