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.
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 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.
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.
Failure to Do Independent Price Impact Analysis Begets Class Certification
Court certifies securities fraud class action where plaintiff expert’s analysis shows market efficiency and where defense expert fails to perform independent event study to show lack of price impact and disprove effect of alleged misrepresentations.
Li v. Aeterna Zentaris, Inc.
Court certifies securities fraud class action where plaintiff expert’s analysis shows market efficiency and where defense expert fails to perform independent event study to show lack of price impact and disprove effect of alleged misrepresentations.
BVLaw Case Update
Every month, BVLaw analyzes and digests federal and state court decisions (including opinions from the United States Tax Court) that focus on valuation and damages issues and feature expert testimony. A BVLaw subscription is an efficient way for financial experts to keep up with developments in their areas of expertise and with the various courts’ takes on valuation methodology, Daubert and the art of presentation, and policy concerns.
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.
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.
Wholesale exclusion of expert testimony contravenes Daubert, 2nd Circuit says
One error in an extensive economic analysis does not automatically call into question the entire expert opinion, the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals recently said in the context of a securities fraud lawsuit involving the drug giant Pfizer. With this pronouncement the appeals court resuscitated a class action that had died after the district court excluded the plaintiffs' loss causation and damages expert under Daubert based on errors in the expert's event study. Deprived of the testimony, the plaintiffs were unable to prove two critical elements of their claim.
Inclusion of Inflated Purchase Price Does Not Doom Damages Calculation
District court finds expert’s damages calculation in securities case is not unreliable simply because it incorporates inflated purchase; expert also performed an event study and regression analysis to assess the effect of misrepresentation on inflated pri ...
In re Novatel Wireless Securities Litigation
District court finds expert’s damages calculation in securities case is not unreliable simply because it incorporates inflated purchase; expert also performed an event study and regression analysis to assess the effect of misrepresentation on inflated pri ...
Expert’s Event Study ‘Flouts’ Commonly Accepted Methodology
District court strike’s expert event study, purporting to support a “fraud on the market theory,” for “flouting” accepted methodology, including “cherry-picking” the event dates and failing to account for confounding factors.
Bricklayers and Trowel Trades International Pension Fund v. Credit Suisse First Boston
District court strike’s expert event study, purporting to support a “fraud on the market theory,” for “flouting” accepted methodology, including “cherry-picking” the event dates and failing to account for confounding factors.
Event Study Analysis Rejected When Other Possible Events Not Considered
The Delaware Court of Chancery rejected a lost profits computation based on an event study analysis that failed to consider all possible events that may have resulted in the lost profits in this breach of a protective convent in a lease case.