Search:
NOT LOGGED IN
BVR's Guide to Fair Value in Shareholder Dissent, Oppression and Marital Dissolution

This page is for demo purposes only, and some links aren't turned on. If you are a subscriber please login. To purchase this guide and start your subscription click here.



Preview the Table of Contents & Excerpt from BVR's Guide to Fair Value in Shareholder Dissent, Oppression and Marital Dissolution

This guide was created as a feature-enhanced PDF so you can use extra tools such as bookmarking pages, highlighting and note-taking. To download the PDF, click on the cover image or title. Please note, you may need to use the free Digital Reader download to enable some functions of the enhanced-feature PDF. Visit www.adobe.com for more information.



For a list of links to full texts of court case opinions related to Fair Value Dissent and Oppression, click on the heading below.

Fair Value

  Updates

10/28/2009

Statutory Fair Value of Real Estate Holding Co. Includes Transaction Costs, Taxes

Brynwood Co. v. Schweisberger, 2009 WL 2218728 (Ill. App. 2 Dist.)(July 23, 2009)(unpublished) Several professional tenants in a commercial office formed a C corporation to purchase the property in 1979. The owner of an accounting firm took a lead interest (26%), served on the board of directors, and provided the company’s accounting services until he retired in 1996. The remaining shareholders’ interests ranged from 11% to 14%. The company owned and operated the building as its sole asset for nearly twenty-five years when the directors considered converting to an S corporation, primarily to avoid double taxation (at the corporate and shareholder level). The board also discussed selling the building and dissolving the company. The building was appraised five times, with values ranging from $850,000 to $1.43 million. In 2000, the company repurchased the shares of two non-tenant owners at $42.50 per share. During the next year, it offered to repurchase the interests of all non-tenant owners, including the retired accountant, for $48.50 to $50.00 per share. Click here to read the rest of this abstact.

Feedback? Email - guides@bvresources.com



Bonus article by Douglas K. Moll: Shareholder Oppression and “Fair Value”: Of Discounts, Dates, AND Dastardly Deeds in the Close Corporation

The doctrine of shareholder oppression protects a close corporation minority investor from the improper exercise of majority control. When a minority shareholder establishes “oppressive”majority conduct, a court typically orders the majority to purchase the minority’s stock at its “fair value.” But what does fair value mean? Further, when is fair value to be measured? The questions are critical ones that affect the lives of countless close corporation investors and that generate an enormous amount of present-day litigation. This Article builds a case for defining fair value as enterprise value in the shareholder oppression context. The Article argues, in other words, that the buyout remedy should provide an oppressed minority investor with his pro rata share of the company’s overall value, with no reductions (or “discounts”) for the lack of control or liquidity associated with the minority’s shares. Moreover, the Article suggests that, in many situations, courts should allow an oppressed shareholder to choose between the “date of filing”and the “date of oppression”as the appropriate valuation date.

Click here to download this article
  Fair Value In The News
Note: News feeds are automated and not screened for accuracy or applicability
1/24/2016
Case Comment: Olive Group - Welcome Clarification On Dissent Procedure Under BVI Law - Mondaq News Alerts (registration)
2/3/2016
China Ming Yang Wind Power (MY) Enters $408M 'Go Private' Transaction - StreetInsider.com
2/3/2016
Notable Mergers and Acquisitions 2/3: (SYT) (LOW) (MY) (ZAGG) - StreetInsider.com
1/27/2016
Dissent rights condition in Public M&A: Will Canada continue its own way? - Lexology (registration)
1/26/2016
LLCs Dominate Business Divorce Cases of 2015 - Law.com (subscription)
  Fair Value In The BVWire
2/3/2016
New York's out-of-step position with respect to the discount for lack of marketability in fair value proceedings is a hotly debated issue—and it’s getting even hotter. A "new note" in the debate was sounded in an article in the January issue of Business Valuation Update, according to a blog post by...
Issue #161-1

2/3/2016
The latest news in the business valuation profession and complete coverage of recent court decisions is provided in two new guides from BVR: • The Business Valuation Update Yearbook 2016 covers the most innovative approaches and techniques, leading conferences, new court decisions, and changes...
Issue #161-1

12/16/2015
It’s not uncommon for a trial court to decide a valuation issue by "splitting the baby"—that is, reaching a compromise somewhere in the middle of the opposing figures. Often the decision, however puzzling, stands because the appeals court is reluctant to find an abuse of discretion. A knotty...
Issue #159-3

11/11/2015
New York's position with respect to the discount for lack of marketability is unique compared to the other states. "It 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," writes...
Issue #158-2

10/21/2015
More shareholders than ever don’t believe they’re getting a fair shake in a merger transaction and are petitioning the court to appraise the fair value of their shares. This trend does not seem to show any signs of slowing down, according to the latest issue of Willamette Insights (complimentary...
Issue #157-3



  Fair Value In The Blogs
Note: Blog feeds are automated and not screened for accuracy or applicability
There was an error reading this XML feed...



Copyright © 2016 Business Valuation Resources, LLC. All rights reserved.
(503) 291-7963   Privacy Policy   Top of Page

Accessed: Sunday, 2/7/2016 7:50:09 PM.