Expand the following panels for additional search options.

Fish v. GreatBanc Trust Co.

Court says defense expert opinion provides “credible and persuasive” support for court’s conclusion that ESOP financial advisor produced sound fairness and valuation opinions prior to contested transaction; there was no overpayment for stock at issue.

Chancery achieves fair value with three imperfect valuation techniques

The whole is greater than the sum of its parts. Perhaps Chancellor Bouchard thought of Aristotle when he recently ruled in a statutory appraisal action that, even though the results of three common valuation techniques were unreliable indicators of value, in combination they established fair value.

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.

Tax Court revaluation means big-time savings for taxpayer

In an estate tax dispute that has lasted for over five years, the Tax Court recently revalued the decedent’s minority interest in an Oregon family business by order of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. The recalculation proved a boon to the taxpayer.

In re ISN Software Corp. Appraisal Litig.

Chancery finds gap separating fair value determinations of three valuation experts in a merger involving a privately held company “alarmingly” wide; court says only the DCF, “a simple and powerful concept,” achieves a reliable indicator of fair value.

Chancery Relies on ‘Simple and Powerful’ DCF for Fair Value

Chancery finds gap separating fair value determinations of three valuation experts in a merger involving a privately held company “alarmingly” wide; court says only the DCF, “a simple and powerful concept,” achieves a reliable indicator of fair value.

In re DFC Global Corp.

Court says uncertainty about company’s future performance and viability limits reliability of values derived from DCF and multiples-based comparable company analyses as well as deal price; court blends three “imperfect techniques” to determine fair value.

Chancery Achieves Fair Value by Blending Three ‘Imperfect Techniques’

Court says uncertainty about company’s future performance and viability limits reliability of values derived from DCF and multiples-based comparable company analyses as well as deal price; court blends three “imperfect techniques” to determine fair 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.

Tax Court Corrects Prior Valuation of LP Interest to Startling Result

On remand Tax Court recalculates decedent’s minority LP interest in family partnership by relying entirely on DCF value and giving no weight to value of company’s timberland assets; newly calculated value is half the original value.

Estate of Giustina v. Commissioner (Giustina III)

On remand Tax Court recalculates decedent’s minority LP interest in family partnership by relying entirely on DCF value and giving no weight to value of company’s timberland assets; newly calculated value is half the original value.

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 ...

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.

Highest Court Rebukes Trial Court Over Flat-Out Bar of DCF Approach

State high court says trial court’s categorical rejection of DCF method to value a special purpose plant for tax assessment purposes is improper where parties’ “experienced and knowledgeable” experts relied on it; court remands for new trial on valuation.

No Place for DLOM and Tax Affecting in New York Fair Value Determination

In statutory fair value proceeding to enable buyout of minority interest in limited liability companies, New York court says prevailing expert opinion understates future income stream; court upward adjusts by eliminating DLOM and disallowing tax affecting ...

Lay Testimony About Offer to Buy Represents Admissible Valuation Evidence

Appeals court says nonexpert testimony on a real-world offer to buy owner-spouse’s company was relevant and, therefore, admissible because it provided valuation evidence based on market approach; court remands for rehearing on all valuation testimony.

More Valuation Data Do Not Ensure Fair Class Action Settlement

In stockholder class action, Chancery declines to approve settlement that requires plaintiffs to agree to broad release of claims in exchange for additional valuation-related information, finding it fails to meet applicable “fair and reasonable” standard.

Bankruptcy Court Favors DCF to Value Dissociated Interest

Court finds debtor’s fraudulently conveyed interest represents a dissociated interest that is held by the estate; appropriate valuation date is date of trial, and DCF analysis, as modified by court, best captures value of the interest at that time.

Affirmation of DLOM Rulings Augurs End to Shareholder Fight

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%.

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.

Verghetta v. Lawlor

In statutory fair value proceeding to enable buyout of minority interest in limited liability companies, New York court says prevailing expert opinion understates future income stream; court upward adjusts by eliminating DLOM and disallowing tax affecting ...

Court Excludes Pro Forma-Based Economic Damages Analysis

Court excludes plaintiffs’ DCF-based damages calculation, finding it suffers from “garbage-in, garbage-out” problem; plaintiffs’ experts based cash flow analysis on defendant’s preliminary projections rather than subsequently available actual sales data.

Value Determination Accords With Parties’ Contract, Chancery Says

Court says valuation firm’s determination of value of defendants’ put units accords with agreement to which plaintiff and defendants committed themselves; since contract does not provide for judicial review, court won’t “second-guess” valuator’s judgment.

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.

351 - 375 of 553 results