Defective Lost Profits Analysis Triggers Take-Nothing Ruling
High court discusses level of evidence required to establish future lost profits with “reasonable certainty”; plaintiff did not show it lost any contracts owing to defendants’ wrongdoing and failed to show profitability specific to claimed lost contracts.
Court adheres to earlier ESOP liability and damages rulings
In a controversial ESOP case that turned on the trustee’s oversight of the pretransaction valuation work, the defendant trustee recently filed a motion for reconsideration. It argued the court had committed errors related to its liability and damages findings. Although the court owned up to some mistakes, including a misunderstanding of the concept of beta, it ultimately stuck to its earlier decision.
ACP Master, Ltd. v. Sprint Corp.
In joint fiduciary-appraisal action centering on Sprint’s acquisition of minority interest in related entity, Chancery says merger was entirely fair and adopts respondent expert’s DCF analysis; huge value gap is 90% due to experts’ choice of projections.
DCF Projections Failed to Reflect Target’s Operative Reality, Chancery Says
In joint fiduciary-appraisal action centering on Sprint’s acquisition of minority interest in related entity, Chancery says merger was entirely fair and adopts respondent expert’s DCF analysis; huge value gap is 90% due to experts’ choice of projections.
Lane v. Lampkin (III)
In usurped-corporate-opportunity case, high court upholds trial court’s lost profits calculation based on actual numbers of company benefitting from wrongdoing, although best way is to project future profits or consider past profits of damaged business.
Mississippi High Court Clarifies Best Practice for Lost Profits Calculation
In usurped-corporate-opportunity case, high court upholds trial court’s lost profits calculation based on actual numbers of company benefitting from wrongdoing, although best way is to project future profits or consider past profits of damaged business.
Trustee Liable for Inadequate ESOP Valuation Vetting
Court finds ESOP trustee liable for allowing overpayment for company shares; trustee rushed transaction and failed to scrutinize financial advisor’s valuation ignoring red flags related to projections, use of control premium, beta, rounding up of values.
ESOP Trustee Evaded Fiduciary Duties by Delegating Valuation
Court finds ESOP trustee liable for causing plan to overpay; trustee “delegated” valuation to ESOP valuator without inquiring into valuation components, including projections, and without exploring “glaring” gaps (industry analysis) in valuation report.
Brundle v. Wilmington Trust N.A. (II)
Notwithstanding errors related to the court’s liability and damages determinations, the court rejects trustee’s motion for reconsideration as an inappropriate effort to introduce new legal theories and a late attempt to present a competing damages methodo ...
Court Defends Earlier ESOP Liability and Damages Rulings
Notwithstanding errors related to the court’s liability and damages determinations, the court rejects trustee’s motion for reconsideration as an inappropriate effort to introduce new legal theories and a late attempt to present a competing damages methodo ...
Defective Lost Profits Analysis Triggers Take-Nothing Ruling
High court discusses level of evidence required to establish future lost profits with “reasonable certainty”; plaintiff did not show it lost any contracts owing to defendants’ wrongdoing and failed to show profitability specific to claimed lost contracts.
Horizon Health Corp. v. Acadia Healthcare Co.
High court discusses level of evidence required to establish future lost profits with “reasonable certainty”; plaintiff did not show it lost any contracts owing to defendants’ wrongdoing and failed to show profitability specific to claimed lost contracts.
Another ESOP trustee in trouble over valuation
For the second time in March 2017, a court found an ESOP trustee liable for causing the plan to overpay. The most recent decision chronicles in exhaustive detail how the trustee failed the plan in terms of ensuring that no more than fair market value would be paid for the seller’s shares.
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 ...
Merger valuation disclosures were adequate. Chancery applies business judgment rule to breach of fiduciary duty action
The business judgment rule has featured prominently in a number of recent breach of fiduciary duty cases in front of the Delaware Court of Chancery. Under the rule, the court must not interfere in a transaction if a majority of the minority shareholders approved the deal and the vote was “uncoerced and fully informed.”
ESOP Trustee Evaded Fiduciary Duties by Delegating Valuation
Court finds ESOP trustee liable for causing plan to overpay; trustee “delegated” valuation to ESOP valuator without inquiring into valuation components, including projections, and without exploring “glaring” gaps (industry analysis) in valuation report.
Perez v. First Bankers Trust Services, Inc.
Court finds ESOP trustee liable for causing plan to overpay; trustee “delegated” valuation to ESOP valuator without inquiring into valuation components, including projections, and without exploring “glaring” gaps (industry analysis) in valuation report.
Market Data Approach ‘Particularly Unsuitable’ to Valuing Feature Film
Court rejects expert’s movie valuation based on percentage of cost of making it; market data approach is “particularly unsuitable” because simply averaging price of films and cost to create them does not yield information about value of particular film.
Brundle v. Wilmington Trust N.A. (I)
Court finds ESOP trustee liable for allowing overpayment for company shares; trustee rushed transaction and failed to scrutinize financial advisor’s valuation ignoring red flags related to projections, use of control premium, beta, rounding up of values.
Trustee Liable for Inadequate ESOP Valuation Vetting
Court finds ESOP trustee liable for allowing overpayment for company shares; trustee rushed transaction and failed to scrutinize financial advisor’s valuation ignoring red flags related to projections, use of control premium, beta, rounding up of values.
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.
Shareholder Approval ‘Cleanses’ Potential Undervaluation
Per business judgment rule, court dismisses shareholder complaint that board members breached fiduciary duties by rushing to sell entire company where financial advisor had stated separate sales of company’s various business units would maximize value.
Flop film poses unique valuation challenge
A recent bankruptcy-related case in front of the California Court of Appeal raises important questions about how one quantifies the value of a dated piece of art, a film, for which there never was a market in the first place.
Persuasive’ Defense Expert Testimony Defeats ESOP Overpayment Claims
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.
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 ...