Financial Advisor’s Fairness Opinion Not Materially Misleading

BVLaw
Court Case Digests
January 25, 2018

Access the Full Article

This article is available with a subscription to any of these products:
Already a subscriber?  Login
This article is also available for purchase. (2,106 words)   Add to Cart >>
Need help? Contact us:
1-503-479-8200 ext 2 or sales@bvresources.com
3559 Special Industry Machinery, NEC
333249 Other Industrial Machinery Manufacturing
shareholder dissent/oppression
discount rate, mergers and acquisitions (M&A), discounted cash flow (DCF), intrinsic value, management projections, fairness opinion, earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation, amortization (EBITDA), revenue forecasts
City of Hialeah Emples. Ret. Sys. v. FEI Co.
2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11989
US
Federal Court
Oregon
United States District Court
N/A (plaintiff); N/A (defendants)
Simon

Summary

Court rejects dissenting shareholder’s proxy challenge, finding board member statements about management projections are protected under applicable act’s safe harbor provision; also, court says financial advisor’s fairness opinion did not double count for risk in underlying DCF analysis.

See Also

City of Hialeah Emples. Ret. Sys. v. FEI Co.

Full Text of Court Cases
January 25, 2018

Court rejects dissenting shareholder’s proxy challenge, finding board member statements about management projections are protected under applicable act’s safe harbor provision; also, court says financial advisor’s fairness opinion did not double count for risk in underlying DCF analysis.

This article also appears in:
Business Valuation UpdateVol. 24 No. 8