This week’s post is about a very recent statutory fair value case involving a real estate holding company in New York. The case settled, favorably for the plaintiff/shareholder, after opening arguments at the beginning of trial. The key business valuation question was that of the appropriate marketability discount in a New York fair value determination. All the arguments are shared and analyzed. If you were the holding company, would you have settled?
Several months ago, I wrote a post about a recent ruling of the Tennessee Supreme Court addressing the issue of statutory fair value in Tennessee. The Supreme Court reversed the trial court and remanded the case for reconsideration. In my earlier post, I called this a “friendly reversal” because the Supreme Court reversed with what seemed to me to be an invitation for the trial judge to reach the same conclusion and to be consistent with the Supreme Court’s new ruling.
Last week, I gave a presentation titled “Intrinsic Value and Valuation Multiples” to a conference held by the Fairfax County (Virginia) Bar Association at the Omni Hotel in Nashville. My presentation discussed the intrinsic value standard of value in Virginia divorce-related valuations of closely held business assets. In addition, I talked about developing valuation multiples with credibility. This post addresses the intrinsic value standard of value.
In a 1983 case, Blasingame v. American Materials, Inc., 654 S.W. 2d 659 (Tenn. 1983), the Supreme Court of Tennessee adopted what is called the “Delaware Block” method for determining the fair value of shares in dissenters’ rights cases in Tennessee. This method, considered alone, was already outdated by precedent case law in Delaware when Blasingame was issued. However, in the recent Athlon Sports Communications case, the Tennessee Supreme Court finally brings Tennessee dissenters’ rights appraisal determinations more in line with the majority of states.
The Idaho Supreme Court issued an opinion in Wagner v. Wagner affirming a District Court’s determination in the fair value of shares of Wanooka Farms, Inc. This determination of fair value was a matter of first impression in Idaho. The District Court determined that neither a discount for lack of control (minority discount) nor a discount for lack of marketability (marketability discount) were appropriate in the determination of fair value. The Supreme Court in Idaho affirmed this conclusion, but where does this leave the definition of fair value in Idaho?
Dell Inc. engaged in a management buyout (“MBO”) in October 2013 that effectively took the Company private, leaving Michael Dell in control (75% of its stock) with a financial sponsor (25% of its stock). The majority of shareholders tendered their shares, and received the offered consideration. Certain shareholders dissented, setting in motion an appraisal proceeding in […]
In the 8th post in my Statutory Fair Value and Business Valuation Series, we focus on the case Verghetta v. Lawlor. We consider five valuation issues this case raises: reasonableness of valuation conclusions, reasonableness of normalization adjustments, reasonableness of projections, whether the earnings of tax pass-through entities should be tax-effected, and appropriateness of a marketability discount.