For the longest time, Tennessee case law required trial courts presiding over dissenting shareholder actions to determine fair value by using the Delaware block method. In a recent ruling, the Tennessee Supreme Court struck down the requirement and Tennessee has joined the jurisdictions that allow "more modern" valuation approaches. Read more >>

Twice, in 2017, the Delaware Supreme Court struck down statutory appraisal rulings by the Delaware Court of Chancery that dismissed the importance of the market price. Read more >>

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.” Read more >>

A prior post that highlighted the article “NY’s Unfair Application of Shareholder-Level Marketability Discounts,” written by Gil Matthews and Michelle Patterson (both with Sutter Securities) has sparked calls for the BV profession to speak with “one clear voice” on this issue. Read more >>

Asked to probe the value of the disclosures and by extension the fairness of the settlement to the absent class members, the Chancellor used the occasion to detail the problems related to disclosure settlements. He noted the Chancery’s historical practice of approving such settlements, even though they frequently were of marginal value to the plaintiffs. He considered this past attitude of the court one of the causes for the explosion of deal litigation “beyond the realm of reason." Read more >>

A "new note" in the hotly debated NY DLOM issue was sounded in an article in the January issue of Business Valuation Update. In the article, “NY’s Unfair Application of Shareholder-Level Marketability Discounts,” Gil Matthews and Michelle Patterson (both with Sutter Securities) write that New York “stands alone in that it favors (and some lower courts believe requires) the imposition of a marketability discount on dissenting shareholders in fair value determinations. There is broad consensus that DLOMs should seldom, if ever, be permitted in appraisal or oppression cases.” Read more >>

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. Read more >>

Here are a sampling of cases where issues of business valuation factored in the final court decisions. As always, BVLaw Alert’s digests, and original court documents, are available for these and other breaking decisions. Read more >>