‘Real-World Market Evidence’ Does Not Support Dissenters’ Damages Claim, Chancery Says

BVLaw
Court Case Digests
October 16, 2018

Access the Full Article

This article is available with a subscription to any of these products:
It is also available in this product:
Already a subscriber or product owner?  Login
This article is also available for purchase. (2,822 words)   Add to Cart >>
Need help? Contact us:
1-503-479-8200 ext 2 or sales@bvresources.com
3674 Semiconductors and Related Devices
334413 Semiconductor and Related Device Manufacturing
economic damages & lost profits, breach of fiduciary duty
beta, fair value, mergers and acquisitions (M&A), breach of fiduciary duty, discounted cash flow (DCF), statutory appraisal, projections, market forces
In re PLX Tech. Stockholders Litig.
2018 Del. Ch. LEXIS 336
US
State Court
Delaware
Court of Chancery
Ronald Quintero (plaintiffs); Neil Beaton (defendant)
Laster

Summary

Chancery says plaintiffs proved directors breached fiduciary duties and duty to disclose but failed to prove damages; court rejects plaintiff experts’ DCF analysis, noting problematic projections and beta; “real-world market evidence” shows company was not worth more than deal price.

See Also

In re PLX Tech. Stockholders Litig.

Full Text of Court Cases
October 16, 2018

Chancery says plaintiffs proved directors breached fiduciary duties and duty to disclose but failed to prove damages; court rejects plaintiff expert's DCF analysis, noting problematic projections and beta; “real-world market evidence” shows company was not worth more than deal price.

This article also appears in:
The Comprehensive Guide to Economic Damages, Seventh Edition