Glasscock Scales Back Fair Value in AOL Appraisal
Vice Chancellor Sam Glasscock III granted competing motions for reargument in the high-profile appraisal case after both sides questioned the treatment of financial inputs that led him to set a fair value below the $50 per share price Verizon Communications Inc. paid.
August 15, 2018 at 05:40 PM
3 minute read
A Delaware Court of Chancery judge on Wednesday scaled back his valuation of AOL Inc. stock in another win for the company's attorneys, who had argued his initial finding of fair value at $48.70 has too high.
Vice Chancellor Sam Glasscock III, in a rare move, granted competing motions for reargument in the high-profile appraisal case after both sides questioned the treatment of financial inputs that led Glasscock to set fair value below the $50 per share price Verizon Communications Inc. paid to acquire the company.
Though AOL's Potter Anderson & Corroon attorneys initially said they did not plan to challenge the ruling, they later relented after a group of dissenting investors submitted an “implausible” valuation that ignored compelling market evidence to support AOL's position.
In court briefs, AOL argued that Glasscock had overvalued AOL's pending 10-year “display deal” to take over management and sales of display, mobile and video advertising that appears on Microsoft products, and pushed the judge instead to adopt an overall fair value of $45.54 at the time of the sale.
The appraisal petitioners, on the other hand, pushed Glasscock to adopt a higher value for the display deal and run the projected revenue through the discounted cash flow, or DCF, analysis that Glasscock used in his opinion.
Glasscock, however, said the petitioner's method would require him to revisit the assumptions underlying the DCF model and instead granted AOL's request to simply add the present value of the deal to the DCF analysis, reaching a final fair value of $47.08—$1.62 per share less than his original finding.
Attorneys for both sides did not immediately return calls Wednesday afternoon seeking comment.
The ruling came amid a turbulent time for petitioners looking to pursue their appraisal rights, after a pair of Delaware Supreme Court rulings signaled tighter scrutiny of the cases. In those rulings, known as Dell and DFC, the high court indicated a strong preference for using deal price as a strong indicator of fair value in an arm's length transaction.
Glasscock, however, determined that the AOL sale was not “Dell compliant” and conducted his own DCF analysis to reconcile wildly divergent valuations from petitioners and the company. He used the deal price only as a “check” on his calculations.
In his ruling, Glasscock noted that reargument echoed other judges' frustration with the use of DCF analyses, which often lead to wildly divergent valuations from competing sides in appraisal cases.
“No DCF analysis, used to calculate the 'exact' value of a corporation, can be sufficiently rigorous that it will not permit a good-faith argument that the value should be otherwise. This, I think, substantiates the wisdom of reliance on deal price, where appropriate; it also may explain the current popularity of motions for reargument,” he said.
“Nonetheless,” he added, “this is that rare case where reargument must be granted. ”
The petitioners are represented by Stuart M. Grant, Mary S. Thomas and Laina Herbert of Grant & Eisenhofer.
AOL is represented by William Savitt, Ryan A. McLeod, Andrew J.H. Cheung, Nicholas Walter and Courtney L. Shike of Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz and Kevin R. Shannon, Berton W. Ashman Jr. and Christopher N. Kelly of Potter Anderson & Corroon.
The case is captioned In re: Appraisal of AOL.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllLatham, Finnegan Win $115M Muscular Dystrophy Drug Patent Verdict for Counterclaimant
2 minute readDelaware Supreme Court Adopts Broad Interpretation of Case Law on Anticompetition Provisions
3 minute read3rd Circuit Nominee Mangi Sees 'No Pathway to Confirmation,' Derides 'Organized Smear Campaign'
4 minute readTrending Stories
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250