Demand for Executive Compensation Data Lacks ‘Proper Purpose’

Business Valuation UpdateVol. 22 No. 5
Legal and Court Case Update
May 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. (1,314 words)   Add to Cart >>
Need help? Contact us:
1-503-479-8200 ext 2 or sales@bvresources.com
2611 Pulp Mills
322121 Paper (except Newsprint) Mills
shareholder dissent/oppression
expert testimony, fair value, income approach, reasonable compensation, fair market value (FMV), minority discount, minority interest, standard of value, controlling interest, officer compensation
Pearson v. Westervelt Co.
2016 Ala. Civ. App. LEXIS 17
January 8, 2016
US
State Court
Alabama
Court of Civil Appeals
None (plaintiff); Dr. B. Perry Woodside (defendant)
Thompson

Summary

Appeals court finds no error in trial court’s rejection of plaintiff’s demand for inspection of corporate records on executive compensation, where expert testimony showed information was not necessary to value plaintiff’s minority interest in company.

See Also

Pearson v. Westervelt Co.

Full Text of Court Cases
January 8, 2016

Appeals court finds no error in trial court’s rejection of plaintiff’s demand for inspection of corporate records on executive compensation, where expert testimony showed information was not necessary to value plaintiff’s minority interest in company.