We’ve followed the continuing tale of New York’s inconsistent position with respect to the discount for lack of marketability in fair value proceedings (for example, see this coverage). Chris Mercer (Mercer Capital) tells us about the latest case: a New York statutory dissolution action requiring the court to determine the fair value of a real estate holding company. On the morning of trial and right after opening statements, the case settled at a small discount to the net asset value (real estate at market values) of the company. The appraiser for the company suggested a 35% marketability discount based on restricted stock and pre-IPO studies. Mercer suggested a 0% marketability discount, citing guidance from prior cases, real estate valuation concepts arguing against discounting, and business valuation theory as well. The judge’s questions following opening statements led to the settlement per counsel for the plaintiff. While there was no decision, the logic for a 0% DLOM for a real estate holding company is compelling, as has been found in recent cases Ruggiero v. Ruggiero and Chiu v. Chiu. To read about the latest case, see Mercer’s blog post about the case.