No DLOM Absent Extraordinary Circumstances; Bright-Line Rule Prohibiting Built-in Gains Discount Rejected

Business Valuation UpdateVol. 8 No. 10
Legal and Court Case Update
October 2002

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. (1,239 words)   Add to Cart >>
Need help? Contact us:
1-503-479-8200 ext 2 or sales@bvresources.com
6719 Offices of Holding Companies, NEC
551112 Offices of Other Holding Companies
shareholder dissent/oppression
fair value, discount for lack of marketability (DLOM), market approach, c corporation, s corporation
Norton Co v. Smyth
112 Wn. App. 865, 51 P.3d 159, 2002 Wash. App. LEXIS 1841
August 5, 2002
US
State Court
Washington
Court of Appeals
Arthur Andersen (for plaintiff) <br> Robert Duffy (for defendant)
Kennedy

Summary

The issue, in this case of first impression in Washington, was the propriety of discounts for lack of marketability and built-in capital gains in a dissenters' rights proceeding.

See Also

Norton Co v. Smyth

Full Text of Court Cases
August 5, 2002

The issue, in this case of first impression in Washington, was the propriety of discounts for lack of marketability and built-in capital gains in a dissenters' rights proceeding.