Grimes v. Vitalink Communications

BVLaw
Full Text of Court Cases
August 26, 1997

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. (10,120 words)   Add to Cart >>
Need help? Contact us:
1-503-479-8200 ext 2 or sales@bvresources.com
8743 Public Relations Services
541820 Public Relations Agencies
shareholder dissent/oppression
fair value, discounted cash flow (DCF), dissenting shareholder, terminal value
Grimes v. Vitalink Communications
1997 Del. Ch. LEXIS 124
US
State Court
Delaware
Court of Chancery
William Becklean (for petitioner) Kevin Dages (for respondent)
Chandler

Summary

At issue is the fair value of petitioners' Vitalink shares based on corporation's future cash flows.

See Also

Delaware Chancery Court Endorses DCF Model; Forecast Assumptions Must Be Likely Scenarios

Legal and Court Case Update
October 1997

In a dissent to a typical statutory merger of a company called Vitalink, dissenters owning 201,900 shares claim a fair value of $13.32 per share versus respondent's $8.50 per share.