Content uploaded by Gilbert Matthews
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Gilbert Matthews on Mar 31, 2020
Content may be subject to copyright.
Delaware Court Adds Control Premium to Subsidiary Value: Hintmann v. Fred Weber, Inc.
Abstract
This article discusses the Delaware Court of Chancery’s decision in this case and criticizes its application of a control premium to a wholly-owned subsidiary.
State courts employ fair value as the predominant standard to determine the value of minority shares in both appraisal (also known as dissent) and oppression cases. When the courts determine the minority's share price in an appraisal or order the buy-out of an oppressed minority shareholder, the price of the award or buyout is critical for both parties and sets the "fair value" of the minority's shares. Although appraisal and oppression statutes in most states expressly or effectively stipulate that the minority's shares are to be valued at "fair value," there remains considerable confusion about what "fair value" means. To understand fair value as a standard of measurement, it must be considered in contrast to the standards of value called fair market value and third-party sale value, as will be discussed in this Chapter.
Both appraisal and oppression cases are governed by state law. That state law includes corporate law statutes, the judicial interpretations of those statutes, and the courts’ holdings under their equitable authority even when the state lacks corresponding statutes. Although fair value is now the state-mandated or accepted standard for judicial appraisal and oppression valuations in almost all states, there are differing interpretations of its meaning and measurement that have evolved through legislative changes and judicial interpretation.
. . . . .
Note: Updated in 2017 articles - “Statutory Fair Value in Dissenting Shareholder Cases: Part I” and “... Part II”
ResearchGate has not been able to resolve any references for this publication.