This is the fourth and likely last in a series of posts on Friedman v. Beway, and a couple of other cases on statutory fair value in New York. In this post, we examine the concluded marketability discounts in 32 New York fair value cases since about 1985. When we look at the numbers, New York courts appear to be trending to conclusions of marketability discounts at or near 0%. There are, however, a small number of exceptions to this conclusion which we discuss in the post.
In the final post in this series, we examine the actual marketability discounts concluded in statutory fair value matters since about 1985. The analysis will differentiate between appellate-level and trial court cases that stand and were not appealed. The results will likely be surprising for those interested in statutory fair value in New York.
This post provides a review of the 1995 New York Appellate Division, First Department case of Beway, which addressed certain “principles” guiding statutory fair value determinations in New York. It points out what appears to me to be a significant inconsistency in the treatment of marketability discounts based on the guidance from Beway. As will be shown, “equal treatment of all shares of the same class of stock” is not really equal treatment.
Peter Mahler of New York Business Divorce Blog wrote a post today titled “Disclosure of Estate Tax Stock Appraisals in Shareholder Disputes.” The question addressed is if or whether, in the context of contested stock valuation procedures stemming from elections to purchase in statutory dissolution or dissenting shareholder cases, pre-litigation appraisals rendered for estate tax purposes (or other purposes) should be discoverable. That’s a good question. In this post, I’ll comment briefly as a business appraiser and businessman.
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.