California Court of Appeal Allows a Discount for Lack of Control in the Buyout of 25% Interests in an LLC
This case concerned the purchase of minority interests in a California limited liability company under the Corporate Code concerning the purchase of these interests in lieu of a liquidation of the company. The appellate court affirmed the trial court’s order confirming the purchase of these interests at a discounted fair market value.
Strougo v. Tivity Health, Inc.
In this case regarding alleged fraud in the purchase or sale of securities, the defendants pled a motion to dismiss the plaintiffs’ claims. The parties categorized the defendants’ alleged misstatements into two groups: (1) the Nutrisystem claim, where the defendants allegedly misled investors as to the success of the Nutrisystem acquisition; and (2) the goodwill claim, where the defendants allegedly impaired goodwill by carrying goodwill at a value that exceeded its implied fair value. The court denied the motion to dismiss.
Court Denies a Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ Claims That Defendants “Hid” Losses and Impaired Goodwill
In this case regarding alleged fraud in the purchase or sale of securities, the defendants pled a motion to dismiss the plaintiffs’ claims. The parties categorized the defendants’ alleged misstatements into two groups: (1) the Nutrisystem claim, where the defendants allegedly misled investors as to the success of the Nutrisystem acquisition; and (2) the goodwill claim, where the defendants allegedly impaired goodwill by carrying goodwill at a value that exceeded its implied fair value. The court denied the motion to dismiss.
Cont'l Investors Fund LLC v. TradingScreen Inc.
The defendant did not breach its redemption agreement because a committee of directors, “properly engaged in the judgment-laden task of determining the amount of funds that the company could use for redemptions … [and] determined that using a greater amount of cash to redeem more shares threatened the company's ability to continue as a going concern.” As a result, interest on the asserted obligation back to 2013 was not allowed at 13%, the amount per the agreement.
Company Did Not Breach Its Redemption Agreement Because of Diligence of Directors
The defendant did not breach its redemption agreement because a committee of directors, “properly engaged in the judgment-laden task of determining the amount of funds that the company could use for redemptions … [and] determined that using a greater amount of cash to redeem more shares threatened the company's ability to continue as a going concern.” As a result, interest on the asserted obligation back to 2013 was not allowed at 13%, the amount per the agreement.
Willamette gives insights into shareholder litigation
The Spring 2019 Insights from Willamette Management Associates focuses on shareholder litigation and is edited by Kevin M. Zanni.
Defense Event Study Rebuts Plaintiff’s Price Impact Claim
Court denies class certification in securities fraud case, finding defense financial expert is able to rebut presumption of reliance by way of event study that shows defendant’s alleged misrepresentation had no significant impact on company’s stock price.
In re Finisar Corp. Secs. Litig.
Court denies class certification in securities fraud case, finding defense financial expert is able to rebut presumption of reliance by way of event study that shows defendant’s alleged misrepresentation had no significant impact on company’s stock price.
Baker v. Seaworld Entm’t, Inc.
Court grants class certification in securities fraud case; defense expert’s event study to show absence-of-price-impact fails to rebut presumption of reliance; plaintiff meets predominance requirement and its expert offers valid classwide damages model.
Court Balks at Event Study’s Singular Focus on Misrepresentation
Court grants class certification in securities fraud case; defense expert’s event study to show absence-of-price-impact fails to rebut presumption of reliance; plaintiff meets predominance requirement and its expert offers valid classwide damages model.
Direct Evidence of Price Impact Not Always Necessary, 2nd Circuit Says
In a securities fraud action, appeals court upholds class certification; trial court did not err when it found direct evidence of price impact by way of event study was not necessary to show market efficiency where there was strong indirect evidence.
Waggoner v. Barclays PLC
In a securities fraud action, appeals court upholds class certification; trial court did not err when it found direct evidence of price impact by way of event study was not necessary to show market efficiency where there was strong indirect evidence.
Expert’s Damages Opinion Specific Enough for Class Certification Stage
In a securities case, court applies Daubert analysis to plaintiff expert’s market efficiency opinion and event study; expert is qualified even without academic background, and his damages opinion is sufficiently specific to facts of the case and reliable.
SEC’s Daubert Challenge to Securities Valuation Testimony Fizzles
In an SEC case requiring valuation of restricted securities, court admits most of the testimony of parties’ experts; experts need not be specialists in given field and need not demonstrate familiarity with USPAP or SSVS to qualify under Daubert, court fin ...
SEC’s Daubert Challenge to Securities Valuation Testimony Fizzles
In an SEC case requiring valuation of restricted securities, court admits most of the testimony of parties’ experts; experts need not be specialists in given field and need not demonstrate familiarity with USPAP or SSVS to qualify under Daubert, court fin ...
SEC v. Nutmeg Group, LLC
In an SEC case requiring valuation of restricted securities, court admits most of the testimony of parties’ experts; experts need not be specialists in given field and need not demonstrate familiarity with USPAP or SSVS to qualify under Daubert, court fin ...
Expert’s Damages Opinion Specific Enough for Class Certification Stage
In a securities case, court applies Daubert analysis to plaintiff expert’s market efficiency opinion and event study; expert is qualified even without academic background, and his damages opinion is sufficiently specific to facts of the case and reliable.
Willis v. Big Lots, Inc.
In a securities case, court applies Daubert analysis to plaintiff expert’s market efficiency opinion and event study; expert is qualified even without academic background, and his damages opinion is sufficiently specific to facts of the case and reliable.
High Court Dissent Rebukes Chancery’s Analysis in Option Valuation Case
In medical company valuation case, high court affirms award to option holders based on deference owed to trial court’s findings of historical fact; dissent says Chancery’s dismissal ...
Is Expert Opinion Based Solely on Experience Admissible?
Court rules expert testimony based solely on experience may be admissible under Federal Rule of Evidence 702, notwithstanding Daubert requirements.
2nd Circuit Chafes at Wholesale Exclusion of Loss Causation Testimony
Second Circuit says district court “went astray” when, under Daubert, it excluded entire loss causation and damages testimony of plaintiffs’ expert instead of just eliminating unreliable part; appeals court ruling revives securities fraud class action.
Is Expert Opinion Based Solely on Experience Admissible?
Court rules expert testimony based solely on experience may be admissible under Federal Rule of Evidence 702, notwithstanding Daubert requirements.
Broyles v. Cantor Fitzgerald & Co.
Court rules expert testimony based solely on experience may be admissible under Federal Rule of Evidence 702, notwithstanding Daubert requirements.
Cdx Holdings, Inc. v. Fox (Fox II)
In medical company valuation case, high court affirms award to option holders based on deference owed to trial court’s findings of historical fact; dissent says Chancery’s dismissal of board members’ valuation testimony evinces Chancery’s hindsight bias.
High Court Dissent Rebukes Chancery’s Analysis in Option Valuation Case
In medical company valuation case, high court affirms award to option holders based on deference owed to trial court’s findings of historical fact; dissent says Chancery’s dismissal ...