Blog

Category: Shareholder Disputes

We have distilled decades of experience at the intersection of law, business and finance into a suite of articles to help our clients make sense of business valuation, forensic accounting, and litigation support. Please visit our site regularly for our latest content.

  Last week we published the first of three installments of our Delaware Appraiser Series. We reviewed the fair value standard and some notable differences between the fair value standard used in the Delaware Chancery Court and fair market value defined in Revenue Ruling 59-60 of the Internal Revenue Code. There have been some recent developments in the Delaware Chancery Court providing further guidance on fair value. A number of these cases focus on the process used in “shopping” the subject company for sale; particularly when one side is seeking value in excess of an actual transaction. The Court has highly scrutinized or ignored the transactional value, depending on the sale process relied upon in their analysis. We leave the formal “briefing” to you, but we wanted to identify those cases that we think will be of interest. DELL INC V. MAGNETAR GLOBAL EVENT DRIVEN MASTER FUND LTD ET AL DECISION 12/14/17 https://courts.delaware.gov/Opinions/Download.aspx?id=266610 On appeal, the Delaware Chancery Court revised its opinion as to whether Silver Like Partners had perfected their appraisal rights. Silver Like Partners claimed Dell’s shares were worth more than the management buy-out price of $13.75 per share, a 37% premium to the Company’s ninety-day average unaffected stock price. The Court found that market pricings of Dell’s shares should not have been ignored and were relevant. In its original determination, the Court used a discounted cash flow method only, because the market was determined to be “inefficient.” A key finding in this appeal is summarized below: “The […]


Full Read

  According to a recent Delaware Division of Corporations Annual Report, more than 66% of the Fortune 500 companies are registered in the State of Delaware.  That being said, it is not surprising that the Delaware Chancery Court is widely recognized as one of the nation’s leading courts in settling shareholder appraisal disputes. Delaware affords protection to shareholders by granting appraisal rights within Delaware §262 where fair value is defined §262(h): After the Court determines the stockholders entitled to an appraisal, the appraisal proceeding shall be conducted in accordance with the rules of the Court of Chancery, including any rules specifically governing appraisal proceedings. Through such proceeding the Court shall determine the fair value of the shares exclusive of any element of value arising from the accomplishment or expectation of the merger or consolidation, together with interest, if any, to be paid upon the amount determined to be the fair value. In determining such fair value, the Court shall take into account all relevant factors. This definition can cause an appraiser to consider alternative methodologies and/or apply discounts and premiums differently than for different jurisdictions or for tax valuations. As you may be aware, Fair market value as defined by Revenue ruling 59-60 is:  “the price at which the property would change hands between a willing buyer and a willing seller when the former is not under any compulsion to buy and the latter is not under any compulsion to sell, both parties having reasonable knowledge of relevant facts.” The […]


Full Read

  As the business valuation discipline matures, judges, attorneys and other people who rely on appraisal conclusions are becoming more comfortable with the income approach. But how does a business’s perceived risk translate into a reasonable discount rate? This is one of the most subjective — and contentious — aspects of valuing a business. Breaking down the income approach Under the income approach, value is a function of a company’s expected economic benefits and its risk relative to other investment types. Valuators typically gauge expected economic benefits in terms of net cash flow. They measure risk by the company’s cost of capital, which is the expected rate of return investors require to invest in the subject company. Riskier businesses have lower values as a result of lower projected income, higher discount rates — or a combination of these. The two most common methods that fall under the income approach are the capitalization of earnings and discounted cash flow methods. Discounting future cash flow The key to both of these methods is converting expected cash flows (or other economic benefits) to present value. This requires the valuator to use a discount rate that reflects the time value of money and the degree of risk associated with an investment in the business. Put another way, the discount rate reflects the risk associated with achieving the expected cash flows. When valuing a company’s equity, valuators may estimate expected cash flows to equity investors and use the cost of equity as the discount rate. […]


Full Read

  The hiring of a joint business valuation expert can often be useful. This strategy assumes that the parties will openly share information and act in good faith. But it may not be realistic in all situations, including contentious divorces and shareholder disputes. Sharing fees and information When using a joint valuation expert, the parties will only be satisfied by the outcome if there’s a mutual perception of fairness. Perceived fairness is enhanced when: • Both parties have a say in the interviewing and selection of the credentialed expert, • The expert and both parties have full access to relevant information, such as tax returns, financial statements, responses to questionnaires and notes from site visits, • The expert’s communications between the parties are shared, and • Both parties contribute to the expert’s costs. The expert should explain upfront that the valuation will be performed in an objective, unbiased manner. If either party suspects that a joint valuation expert is biased, dissatisfaction may ensue, possibly leading to appeals and additional fees. Potential upsides When the conditions are right, using a joint expert can benefit both sides. The benefits extend beyond just saving money and streamlining the valuation process. A joint expert also helps minimize disruptions to business operations from site visits, information requests and management interviews. Additionally, parties that share a valuation expert prove that they can trust each other, improving the chances of effectively working together in the future. For example, buyers and sellers who share an expert to conduct […]


Full Read

Without a site visit it can be difficult for a valuation expert to gather all of the information needed to fully understand a business’s operations. This article provides insight on how these steps facilitate the valuation process and discusses a recent valuation engagement in which our request for a site visit was rejected.


Full Read

Noncompete agreements can help businesses retain valuable employees, safeguard inside information and prevent unfair competition. But though they’re designed to protect companies, they can also put them at risk if they’re not properly structured and maintained. This article explains how valuators help ensure noncompete agreements are valued appropriately and are fair to all parties.


Full Read

  I was recently retained to prepare a valuation report for a shareholder dispute. Our office prepared a draft report utilizing the fair value standard, which is the standard to be used in New York State for such cases. Counsel invited both experts to a meeting hoping to settle the case without the need of costly litigation. The opposing expert came armed with a plethora of schedules and worksheets computing the minority shareholders interest – but to the surprise to all, the experts opinion was developed under the fair market value standard. The terms “fair value” and “fair market value” are sometimes used interchangeably. To a business valuation professional, however, they have very different meanings. Adding to the confusion, “fair value” may be statutorily defined for shareholder litigation (NYS) and divorce purposes (NJ) – and that definition may vary depending on the case’s venue. Moreover, fair value means something entirely different when it’s used for financial reporting purposes. (See “Fair value under GAAP.”) Ultimately, an expert’s conclusion can differ significantly, depending on which standard of value is appropriate. Fair market value Fair market value is probably the most widely recognized valuation standard. It’s commonly used to value businesses or business interests for sale and tax purposes. The IRS defines fair market value in Revenue Ruling 59-60 as “[T]he price at which the property would change hands between a willing buyer and a willing seller when the former is not under any compulsion to buy and the latter is not under […]


Full Read

  Information presented on a company’s financial statements may not always be meaningful from a valuation perspective – even if it follows U.S. Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP). Whether financial information is obtained from business income tax returns or audited financial records, valuation experts often make adjustments to get a clearer picture of a company’s financial position, market risk and ability to generate cash flow in the future. In some instances these adjustments may be due to some nefarious actions of the business owner.  In other instances they may just be due to elections in accounting methodology or procedures.uing a business interest. Although these adjustments vary from case to case, many of them fall into one or more of the following types when valuing a business interest. Nonstandard accounting practices, Extraordinary or nonrecurring items, Hidden assets or liabilities, and/or Discretionary spending. The following is a condensed review of these common adjustments. 1. Nonstandard accounting practices A valuation expert may estimate value by using pricing multiples derived from comparable private and public transactions (under the market approach) and discount rates derived from returns on public company stocks (under the income approach). Thus, if the subject company deviates from how other companies in its industry typically report transactions, the valuator may need to make adjustments. Certain financial reporting practices may require adjustment, if the subject company’s methods differ from industry norms. Examples include differences in inventory, depreciation or revenue recognition methods. For example, if a company uses the last-in, first-out method (LIFO) […]


Full Read

You have just picked up a new case. Your client is a partner in a small or medium sized professional practice.  Maybe it’s a medical practice, an accounting office or even a law firm. You were hired to serve as counsel in a shareholder dispute or even a divorce?  It really doesn’t matter. What does matter is that your clients’ equity interest needs to be valued. After a long afternoon with your client you realize there are a number of issues that may derail a quick resolution to this dispute.  Even now, you may have more questions than answers.  Setting aside those concerns specific to your clients’ practice and profession – there are a few issues you need to consider. What is the appropriate standard of value to be used? What is the appropriate date of the valuation? and How is goodwill to be determine? (if at all) These issues are important to establish your client’s equity interest value, as well as other issues that may be germane.  For instance in a matrimonial setting spousal and child support needs to be determined.  In a shareholder/partner dispute income distributions and loans may need to be analyzed. The following provides a short discussion of same. 1. Standard of value The use of an incorrect standard (of value) can render a valuation report and the related testimony inadmissible. Fair market value and fair value are among the most common standards, but some jurisdictions now call for “intrinsic value.” Fair market value as defined […]


Full Read

Shareholders with the forethought to sign buy-sell agreements help facilitate voluntary and involuntary transfers between shareholders. But when it’s time for a buyout, many shareholders discover that their agreements don’t cover all of the necessary details. Here are four key terms to consider when drafting or reviewing a buy-sell agreement. 1. Definitions One of the leading causes of disputes in shareholder buyouts is failure to provide valuation guidelines and define key terms. For example, buy-sell agreements often state that the buyout price is the value of an interest in the business. But “value” can mean different things in different contexts, so the agreement needs to spell out whether the price should be based on fair market value, fair value, investment value or some other standard of value. Moreover, every valuation is effective “as of” a certain point in time, and the valuation date can have a big impact on the result. The agreement should specify whether the date used is the date of the triggering event, the last day of the company’s most recent fiscal year or some other date. Using a specific date rather than the date of the triggering event discourages owners from timing their departures to maximize the buyout price. 2. Discounts & Premiums Even if a buy-sell agreement specifies a standard of value, the level of value – which can range from a controlling interest to a nonmarketable, minority interest – can have an enormous impact on the outcome. Parties to buy-sell agreements often assume that […]


Full Read