Expand the following panels for additional search options.

Court rejects experts' fair value determinations in Minnesota buyout case

The plaintiff is the “prevailing party,” a Minnesota district court recently decided, allowing the minority owner of a well-known family business to sell her share for over $40 million. The valuation trial featured high-caliber experts who disagreed about every input and assumption underlying their discounted cash flow analyses.

In Big Buyout Ruling, Minnesota Court Rejects DLOM in Calculating Fair Value

In a forced buyout, court says experts were too partisan to their clients, compromising value analysis; court performs its own valuation using DCF to determine fair value of grocery business and rejects DLOM because no unfair transfer of wealth occurs.

Lund v. Lund (I)

In a forced buyout, court says experts were too partisan to their clients, compromising value analysis; court performs its own valuation using DCF to determine fair value of grocery business and rejects DLOM because no unfair transfer of wealth occurs.

New Jersey Court Finds Defendant’s Actions Justify DLOM in Forced Buyout

In New Jersey fair value determination, following precedent, court finds defendant’s conduct justifies use of a marketability discount because he was oppressing shareholder who created “extraordinary circumstances” necessitating forced buyout; court rejec ...

Schewe v. Schewe Farms

Appellate court affirms fair value determination of distributional interest in family farm based on multiprong valuation; company is not a holding company, and net asset valuation alone fails to capture fair value of dissociating members’ interest.

NAV Alone Fails to Capture Distributional Interest’s Fair Value

Appellate court affirms fair value determination of distributional interest in family farm based on multiprong valuation; company is not a holding company, and net asset valuation alone fails to capture fair value of dissociating members’ interest.

New Jersey court applies DLOM in forced buyout: Defendant’s conduct created ‘extraordinary circumstance’

In adjudicating a New Jersey family dispute that escalated into an oppressed shareholder action, the trial court recently found the oppressing shareholder had created a situation that mandated the application of a discount for marketability (DLOM) in order to achieve a “fair and equitable” outcome.

Chancery Recognizes Reality of Control Premium in Third-Party Offers

Court says special committee’s accepting controlling shareholder’s lower bid over third-party’s higher offer is not sign of bad-faith dealing but of reality that “buyers of corporate control will be required to pay a premium” to acquire the whole company.

New Jersey Court Finds Defendant’s Actions Justify DLOM in Forced Buyout

In New Jersey fair value determination, following precedent, court finds defendant’s conduct justifies use of a marketability discount because he was oppressing shareholder who created “extraordinary circumstances” necessitating forced buyout; court rejec ...

Parker v. Parker

In New Jersey fair value determination, following precedent, court finds defendant’s conduct justifies use of a marketability discount because he was oppressing shareholder who created “extraordinary circumstances” necessitating forced buyout; court rejec ...

In re Books a Million Stockholders Litig.

Court says special committee’s accepting controlling shareholder’s lower bid over third-party’s higher offer is not sign of bad-faith dealing but of reality that “buyers of corporate control will be required to pay a premium” to acquire the whole company.

Chancery Recognizes Reality of Control Premium in Third-Party Offers

Court says special committee’s accepting controlling shareholder’s lower bid over third-party’s higher offer is not sign of bad-faith dealing but of reality that “buyers of corporate control will be required to pay a premium” to acquire the whole company.

Chancery Rejects Deal Price Based on Unquantifiable ‘Sales Process Mispricing’

For statutory appraisal, Chancery says sales process related to management buyout “functioned imperfectly as a price discovery tool” and gives no weight to final merger price; court relies exclusively on DCF analysis to derive fair value of the company.

In Buyout, Income-Based Expert Appraisal Beats Other Value Indicators

In partnership dispute, appeals court affirms redemption award based on multiple-of-earnings valuation, finding valuation was reliable and admissible under state equivalent of Daubert and trial court had discretion to disregard other indicators of value.

Why Del. Chancery rejects merger price in 'Dell' statutory appraisal action

It decided to give no weight to the final merger price—$13.75 per share, and a special $0.13 dividend issued to all shareholders—but rely exclusively on its own post-transaction DCF analysis to determine the fair value of the company. In so doing, the court deviated from a number of Chancery decisions—several issued in 2015—that found the deal price was the most reliable indicator of the company’s fair value.

Dodgy Real Estate Valuation Compromises Dependent Business Valuation

Trial court did not err when it enforced shareholder agreement lacking purchase price and based buyout price on defense expert testimony; opposing expert committed “severe flaws in his methodology and the valuations based upon them,” appeals court says.

In re Appraisal of Dell Inc.

For statutory appraisal, Chancery says sales process related to management buyout “functioned imperfectly as a price discovery tool” and gives no weight to final merger price; court relies exclusively on DCF analysis to derive fair value of the company.

Why Bankruptcy Court declines to be bound by divorce valuation

Following the divorce, the husband filed for Chapter 13 bankruptcy and asked for confirmation of his plan. The issue was whether the plan could meet the liquidation test applicable under the Bankruptcy Code’s section 1325(a)(4). In essence, the test requires that creditors in a Chapter 13 bankruptcy receive present value payments that are at least equal to the amount the creditors would receive in a Chapter 7 case.

Court refuses to take stand on minority discount in buyback of shares

The parties retained a sole appraiser, whom they both knew from past appraisals he had done of the company. Prior to formally engaging the appraiser, in a court hearing, both sides broached the issue of whether it was appropriate to apply a minority discount in valuing the plaintiff's shares. The court declined to weigh in on the subject, but told the parties the minority discount issue should form “part of the discussion” they needed to have over the valuation methodology.

Jafar v. Mohammed

In partnership dispute, appeals court affirms redemption award based on multiple-of-earnings valuation, finding valuation was reliable and admissible under state equivalent of Daubert and trial court had discretion to disregard other indicators of value.

NY fair value ruling deals blow to DLOM

The case featured experts whose professional backgrounds and valuation approaches could hardly be more dissimilar. Their value determinations were light-years apart. In trying to make sense of the conflicting testimony and achieve a plausible and fair result, the court decided it could not totally trust either valuation. Although it adopted the defense expert's valuation, it made two consequential changes to it. One was getting rid of the expert's admittedly high and insufficiently explained 35% discount for lack of marketability.

In re Discontinuance & Disposition of P.K. Smith Motors, Inc.

Trial court did not err when it enforced shareholder agreement lacking purchase price and based buyout price on defense expert testimony; opposing expert committed “severe flaws in his methodology and the valuations based upon them,” appeals court says.

New Jersey DLOM ruling inches ancient dissenting shareholder suit to conclusion

The parties' most recent fight focused on whether the prevailing expert's DCF analysis embedded a marketability discount to account for illiquidity. If not, the trial court had to decided what the appropriate DLOM rate was. The plaintiff-selling shareholder argued in favor of a zero DLOM, the defendants-buying shareholders presented an expert valuation that specified a 35% DLOM, based on the expert's use of a market approach.

Chancery declines to meddle in parties' valuation agreement

In terms of valuation methodology, the agreement provided that “there shall be no minority or non-marketability discount applied.” Also, “fair market value” meant an arm’s length sale to an unrelated third party. And, for purposes of calculating the “total equity value,” the value of the assets would be subject to an EBITDA collar to ensure that the value of the assets was at least 6.5 x but no more than 7.5 x the company’s “EBITDA less Maintenance Capex” for year-end 2013. The resulting number was to be reduced by the company’s obligations and liabilities. Most important, the parties agreed to be bound by the appraiser's calculation of the price of the put units. There was no provision for judicial or any other form of review of the appraiser's valuation.

101 - 125 of 153 results