Expand the following panels for additional search options.

Flaws in North Carolina Court’s Appraisal of Reynolds American

The wrong valuation date, a faulty reliance on other cases and the disregard of projections highlight the court’s opinion in a shareholder dissent case involving two tobacco giants.

Fir Tree Value Master Fund v. Jarden Corp., (Jarden III)

High court affirms trial court’s use of unaffected market price as fair value in statutory appraisal involving merger of publicly traded company; high court rejects petitioners’ late argument that, where sale process was flawed and company failed to prove synergies, deal price should act as floor.

No ‘Long-Recognized Principle’ Against Use of Market Price as Fair Value Indicator, High Court Says

High court affirms trial court’s use of unaffected market price as fair value in statutory appraisal involving merger of publicly traded company; high court rejects petitioners’ late argument that, where sale process was flawed and company failed to prove synergies, deal price should act as floor.

North Carolina court looks to deal price for fair value in tobacco merger

The importance of Delaware appraisal jurisprudence beyond state borders was on display in a recent fair value decision out of North Carolina related to a merger involving the tobacco giant Reynolds.

Reynolds American Inc. v. Third Motion Equities Master Fund Ltd.

In appraisal action involving merger of public (tobacco) company, court, guided by key Delaware court decisions, says deal price best reflects fair value and represents upper limit; contemporaneous valuations based on comparable companies, precedent transactions, and DCF support use of deal price.

North Carolina Court Says Deal Price Represents Upper Limit of Tobacco Company’s Fair Value

In appraisal action involving merger of public (tobacco) company, court, guided by key Delaware court decisions, says deal price best reflects fair value and represents upper limit; contemporaneous valuations based on comparable companies, precedent transactions, and DCF support use of deal price.

Court Says Corrected DCF Still Supports Original Fair Value Determination

Responding to petitioners’ motion for reargument, court concedes and corrects errors in court’s original DCF analysis but finds corrected DCF model still corroborates the original fair value determination; court affirms its reliance on unaffected market price as fair value indicator.

In re Appraisal of Jarden Corp. (II)

Responding to petitioners’ motion for reargument, court concedes and corrects errors in court’s original DCF analysis but finds corrected DCF model still corroborates the original fair value determination; court affirms its reliance on unaffected market price as fair value indicator.

Court of Chancery favors unaffected market price over other fair value indicators (Part 1)

In a freshly minted ruling, the Delaware Court of Chancery said the unaffected market price was the most reliable indicator of fair value in a big statutory fair value case.

In re Appraisal of Jarden Corp. (I)

Court finds record shows unaffected market price is best evidence of fair value; court says company expert’s efficient market analysis and event study provide strong support for use of market price; court’s own DCF analysis generates value close to market price, thus corroborating market price.

Court of Chancery Rules Unaffected Market Price Is Best Evidence of Fair Value

Court finds record shows unaffected market price is best evidence of fair value; court says company expert’s efficient market analysis and event study provide strong support for use of market price; court’s own DCF analysis generates value close to market price, thus corroborating market price.

Delaware Supreme Court Reproves Chancery’s Use of Unaffected Market Price in Aruba

Delaware Supreme Court overturns Court of Chancery’s fair value determination based on unaffected market price and awards petitioners deal price minus synergies as determined by company; trial court’s analysis rested on “inapt” agency-costs theory and raised due process and fairness concerns.

Verition Partners Master Fund Ltd. v. Aruba Networks, Inc. (Aruba III)

Delaware Supreme Court overturns Court of Chancery’s fair value determination based on unaffected market price and awards petitioners deal price minus synergies as determined by company; trial court’s analysis rested on “inapt” agency-costs theory and raised due process and fairness concerns.

Chancery Defends Use of Market Price Citing Recent High Court Rulings

Court of Chancery denies petitioners’ motion for reargument, finding that, in light of high court’s Dell and DFC decisions, the decision to use the unaffected market price as the fair value indicator was not so “ridiculous” or “absurd” as to indicate the Court of Chancery misapprehended the law.

Verition Partners Master Fund Ltd. v. Aruba Networks, Inc.

Court of Chancery denies petitioners’ motion for reargument, finding that, in light of high court’s Dell and DFC decisions, the decision to use the unaffected market price as the fair value indicator was not so “ridiculous” or “absurd” as to indicate the Court of Chancery misapprehended the law.

Court of Chancery disregards deal price where sales process is not ‘Dell compliant’

Recent rulings from the Delaware Supreme Court make it seem as if the discounted cash flow analysis has lost its top ranking among valuation methodologies in statutory appraisals involving publicly traded companies. Not exactly.

Court of Chancery exalts stock price as most accurate indicator of fair value

The Delaware Court of Chancery recently had an opportunity to put into practice the directives the state’s high court had issued in DFC Global and Dell in terms of calculating fair value in a statutory appraisal proceeding.

17 results