In re PetSmart, Inc.

BVLaw
Full Text of Court Cases
May 26, 2017

Access the Full Article

This article and its downloads are 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. (27,957 words)   Add to Cart >>
Need help? Contact us:
1-503-479-8200 ext 2 or sales@bvresources.com
5999 Miscellaneous Retail Stores, NEC
453910 Pet and Pet Supplies Stores
shareholder dissent/oppression
expert testimony, fair value, weighted average cost of capital (WACC), cash flow, discounted cash flow (DCF), fair market value (FMV), going concern, merger, statutory appraisal, projections, fairness opinion, going private
In re PetSmart, Inc.
2017 Del. Ch. LEXIS 89
US
State Court
Delaware
Court of Chancery
Mark A. Cohen (projections expert, petitioners), Kevin Dages (valuation expert, petitioners); Mark Weinstein (projections expert, company/respondent), Andrew Metrick (valuation expert, company/respondent)
Slights

Summary

In statutory appraisal, Chancery decides to “defer” to deal price, citing a robust sales process and well-functioning market; petitioners’ DCF analysis was not a useful valuation tool where it was based on, “at best, fanciful” management projections.
In re PetSmart, Inc.
PDF, Size: 801 KB

See Also

‘Fanciful’ Projections Make DCF an Unreliable Tool in Appraisal Proceeding

Court Case Digests
May 26, 2017

In statutory appraisal, Chancery decides to “defer” to deal price, citing a robust sales process and well-functioning market; petitioners’ DCF analysis was not a useful valuation tool where it was based on, “at best, fanciful” management projections.

This article also appears in:
BVR Guide to Management Projections and Business Valuation: Analysis and Case Law