Kruse v. Synapse Wireless, Inc., 2020 Del. Ch. LEXIS 238 (Del. Ch. July 14, 2020)

John Jenkins writes:

In many respects, the case presented a worst case scenario – it involved a minority squeeze-out of a private company at a price of approximately $0.43 per share with no market check or competitive sales process. Both parties pointed to valuation analyses prepared by their competing experts, which resulted in wildly divergent valuations. The petitioner’s expert opined that each Synapse share was worth $4.1876 at the time of transaction, while Synapse’s expert provided a valuation range of $0.06 to $0.11 per share. Vice Chancellor Slights acknowledged that this left him in a bind:

… As a result, with the exception of relatively minor adjustments to Synapse’s expert’s conclusions about the amount of its debt and available cash, the Vice Chancellor adopted that expert’s approach to the DCF analysis and concluded that the fair market value of the company’s shares was approximately $0.23 per share – nearly 50% below the purchase price.

via DealLawyers.com

Fir Tree Value Master Fund, LP v. Jarden Corp., 2020 WL 3885166, 2020 Del. LEXIS 237 (Del. July 9, 2020)

  • Fir Tree Value Master Fund, LP v. Jarden Corp., 2020 WL 3885166, 2020 Del. LEXIS 237 (Del. July 9, 2020)

On appeal, the petitioners argue the Court of Chancery erred as a matter of law when it adopted Jarden’s unaffected market price as fair value because it ignored what petitioners claim is a “long-recognized principle of Delaware law” that a corporation’s stock price does not equal its fair value. They also claim that the court abused its discretion by refusing to give greater weight to a discounted cash flow analysis populated with data selected by petitioners, ignoring market-based evidence of a higher value, and refusing to use the deal price as a “floor” for fair value.

We affirm the Court of Chancery’s judgment finding $48.31 as the fair value of each share of Jarden stock as of the date of the merger. There is no “long-recognized principle” that a corporation’s unaffected stock price cannot equate to fair value. Although it is not often that a corporation’s unaffected market price alone could support fair value, the court here did consider alternative measures of fair value—a comparable companies analysis, market-based evidence, and discounted cash flow models—but ultimately explained its reasons for not relying on that evidence. Finally, Jarden’s sale price does not act as a valuation floor when the petitioners successfully convinced the court that the deal price resulted from a flawed sale process, and the court found Jarden probably captured substantial synergies in the sale price.

When a market is informationally efficient in the sense that the market’s digestion and assessment of all publicly available information concerning a company is quickly impounded into the company’s stock price, the market price is likely to be more informative of fundamental value. And how informative of fundamental value an informationally efficient market is depends, at least in part, on the extent of material nonpublic information. It is a traditional Delaware view that in some cases the price a stock trades at in an efficient market is an important indicator of its economic value and should be given weight.

via Sheppard Mullin

Salladay v. Lev, 2020 Del. Ch. LEXIS 78, 2020 WL 954032 (Del. Ch. Feb. 27, 2020) (Glasscock, V.C.)

  • Salladay v. Lev, 2020 Del. Ch. LEXIS 78, 2020 WL 954032 (Del. Ch. Feb. 27, 2020) (Glasscock, V.C.)

The Delaware Court of Chancery recently confirmed in Salladay v. Lev that conditioning a conflicted (but non-controller) transaction upon approval by a fully empowered, disinterested and independent special committee can restore the business judgment standard of review for the transaction (rather than the more burdensome entire fairness standard that would otherwise apply). However, the court (in an opinion by Vice Chancellor Glasscock) found that such special committee “cleansing” works only if the special committee protections are put in place prior to the commencement of discussions about what might constitute an acceptable price. In Salladay, the court held that the company chairman’s discussions with the acquirer regarding price created a price collar before the special committee was formed that set the tone for future negotiations, and therefore, the special committee’s approval of the transaction did not restore the business judgment standard of review.

via Cooley, Potter Anderson, Morris James, GD&C, S&C

Omnicare, Inc. v. Laborers District Council Construction Industry Pension Fund (2)—口頭弁論

口頭弁論のtranscriptが公開されました。

録音は未だ公開されていないようです。

〔2014年11月9日追記〕 録音が公開されました。

via MoFo, CorporateCounsel.net, SCOTUSblog, J. Robert Brown, Jr., 10b-5 Daily, Orrick

Omnicare, Inc. v. Laborers District Council Construction Industry Pension Fund (1)

Omnicare, Inc. v. Laborers District Council Construction Industry Pension Fundについて,最高裁判所が裁量上訴を認めました。

毎年,一件以上,連邦証券法関係の最高裁判決が出るのは,研究対象が増えるということで良いことなのでしょうか。Roberts courtになってからの増加の原因が知りたいところです。

本件は,意見(すなわち,ソフト情報)に関する証券法11条の責任について争われた事案で,控訴裁判所でのsplitを解決するものと期待されます。個人的には,原審である第6巡回区合衆国控訴裁判所のIndiana State Dist. Council of Laborers v. Omnicare, Inc., 719 F.3d 498, 505 (6th Cir. 2013)のdoctrineが良いと思っています。最高裁判所の判断はどうなるでしょうか。

次の開廷期(OT 2014–2015)の課題です。

via D&O Diary, Securities Litigation & Compliance Matters, Business Law Prof Blog, SCOTUSblog