Affirmation of DLOM Rulings Augurs End to Shareholder Fight

Business Valuation UpdateVol. 22 No. 3
Legal and Court Case Update
March 2016

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. (1,632 words)   Add to Cart >>
Need help? Contact us:
1-503-479-8200 ext 2 or sales@bvresources.com
4213 Trucking, Except Local
484121 General Freight Trucking, Long-Distance, Truckload
shareholder dissent/oppression
size premium, discount for lack of marketability (DLOM), discounted cash flow (DCF), minority interest, liquidity, minority oppression, equity risk premium (ERP), company specific risk, market analysis
Wisniewski v. Walsh (Wisniewski II)
2015 N.J. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 3001
December 24, 2015
US
State Court
New Jersey
Superior Court
Gary Trugman (selling shareholder/plaintiff-appellant, cross-respondent); Roger J. Grabowski (buyers/defendants-respondents/cross-appellants)
Per curiam

Summary

In dissenting shareholder suit, appeals court upholds trial court’s finding that prevailing DCF analysis did not account for illiquidity by way of a separate marketability discount, as well as court’s finding that appropriate DLOM rate was 25%.

See Also

Wisniewski v. Walsh (Wisniewski II)

Full Text of Court Cases
December 24, 2015

In dissenting shareholder suit, appeals court upholds trial court’s finding that prevailing DCF analysis did not account for illiquidity by way of a separate marketability discount, as well as court’s finding that appropriate DLOM rate was 25%.