• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to content
  • Skip to primary sidebar

McCarter & English Logo

  • People
  • Services
  • Insights
  • Our Firm
    • Leadership Team
    • Social Justice
    • Diversity, Equity & Inclusion
    • Pro Bono
    • Client Service Values
    • Alumni
  • Join Us
    • Lawyers
    • Summer Associates
    • Patent Professionals
    • Professional Staff
    • Job Openings
  • Locations
    • Boston
    • Philadelphia
    • East Brunswick
    • Indianapolis
    • Stamford
    • Hartford
    • Trenton
    • Miami
    • Washington, DC
    • New York
    • Wilmington
    • Newark
  • Share

Share

Browse Alphabetically:

  • A
  • B
  • C
  • D
  • E
  • F
  • G
  • H
  • I
  • J
  • K
  • L
  • M
  • N
  • O
  • P
  • Q
  • R
  • S
  • T
  • U
  • V
  • W
  • X
  • Y
  • Z
  • All
Bankruptcy, Restructuring & Litigation
Blockchain, Smart Contracts & Digital Currencies
Business Litigation
Cannabis
Coronavirus Resource Center
Corporate
Crisis Management
Cybersecurity & Data Privacy
Delaware Corporate, LLC & Partnership Law
Design, Fashion & Luxury
E-Discovery & Records Management
Energy & Utilities
Environment & Energy
Financial Institutions
Food & Beverage
Government Affairs
Government Contracts & Global Trade
Government Investigations & White Collar Defense
Healthcare
Hospitality
Immigration
Impact Investing
Insurance Recovery, Litigation & Counseling
Intellectual Property
Labor & Employment
Life Sciences
Manufacturing
Products Liability, Mass Torts & Consumer Class Actions
Public Finance
Real Estate
Renewable Energy
Sports & Entertainment
Tax & Employee Benefits
Technology Transactions
Transportation, Logistics & Supply Chain Management
Trusts, Estates & Private Clients
Venture Capital & Emerging Growth Companies
  • Broadcasts
  • Events
  • News
  • Publications
  • View All Insights
Search By:
Insights News Open Stack
Main image for The Delaware Supreme Court Underscores the Significance of the Deal Price
Publications|Alert

The Delaware Supreme Court Underscores the Significance of the Deal Price

Delaware Law Update

2.23.2018

The Delaware Supreme Court, sitting en banc, recently reversed in part and remanded the Court of Chancery’s decision regarding the appraisal of Dell, Inc. (“Dell”)[i], which builds upon another recent appraisal decision in which the Delaware Supreme Court (the “Supreme Court”) rejected a bright-line rule in favor of the deal price, but held that the deal price should typically be the best evidence of fair value when the sale involves a public company and a robust arm’s-length sales process.[ii] 

In its post-trial opinion, the Court of Chancery—rejecting the deal price and relying on its own discounted cash flow (“DCF”) analysis—held that the fair value of Dell’s stock was $17.62 per share, which was nearly 30% above the $13.75/share merger price paid to stockholders in October 2013.[iii]

The Supreme Court specifically rejected the three central premises on which the Court of Chancery had relied in rejecting the Dell deal price. First, the Supreme Court found that the Court of Chancery lacked a valid basis for finding a valuation gap between Dell’s stock price and its intrinsic value. To the contrary, the record established that Dell had a deep public float, coverage by over 30 equity analysts in 2012, no controlling stockholder, and was traded in an efficient market. Second, the Supreme Court rejected the Court of Chancery’s concern that there was a lack of strategic bidders. Citing its recent DFC Globalappraisal opinion,[iv] the Supreme Court reiterated that it sees no rational connection between a buyer’s status as a financial bidder and whether the deal price is fair because all buyers assess internal rates of return. Third, the Supreme Court found that none of the “theoretical characteristics” that may be problematic in management-led buyouts (“MBOs”)—such as structural issues, management’s perceived value to the company, and the “winner’s curse” (the phenomenon in which a buyer overpays because of the perception that incumbent management would have paid more if the company was worth it)—applied to Dell. Rather, the Supreme Court found that rival bidders faced minimal structural barriers to a deal, that Dell’s due diligence cooperation addressed the possibility of the “winner’s curse,” and that simply because Dell’s stock dropped in 2004 when Mr. Dell left and rose in 2007 when he returned did not demonstrate Mr. Dell’s value six years later after investors questioned Mr. Dell’s company strategies.

In remanding the matter to the Court of Chancery, the Supreme Court gave the vice chancellor the discretion to enter judgment at the deal price without further proceedings.  However, the Supreme Court instructed that if the Court of Chancery were to choose a different route, it must adhere to the Supreme Court’s reasoning on the DCF valuation, and, if weighing various factors, the vice chancellor must explain his reasoning. As it did in its recent decision in DFC Global, the Supreme Court in Dell refused to create a strict rule presuming the fairness of the transaction price, but reinforced the significance of the deal price in assessing fair value. The Supreme Court implied that if the Court of Chancery is going to stray far from the deal price, it must have a strong justification for doing so.  Nevertheless, the Supreme Court’s reasoning in both DFC Global and Dell was very fact-specific, signaling that the appraisal analysis continues to be a case-by-case assessment. Indeed, there may be instances in which the deal price lacks significance, such as when problems pertaining to MBOs are not mitigated.


[i] Dell, Inc. v. Magnetar Global Event Driven Master Fund Ltd, 2017 WL 6375829, at *1 (Del. Dec. 14, 2017) (“Dell”).

[ii] See DFC Global Corp. v. Muirfield Value Partners, L.P., 172 A.3d 346, 348 (Del. 2017) (“DFC Global”).

[iii] A summary of the Court of Chancery’s opinion in In re Appraisal of Dell Inc., 2016 WL 3186538, at *1 (Del. Ch. May 31, 2016), is available here.

[iv] See n.ii supra.

sidebar

pdfemail

Related People

Media item: Hayley J. Reese
Hayley J. Reese

Associate

Related Services

Delaware Corporate, LLC & Partnership Law
Corporate
Subscribe to our Insights
McCarter & English, LLP
Copyright © 2023 McCarter & English, LLP. All Rights Reserved.
  • Login
  • Attorney Advertising
  • Privacy
  • Awards Methodology
  • Contact
  • Subscribe
  • Sitemap

The McCarter & English, LLP website is for informational purposes only. We do not provide legal advice on this website. We can provide legal advice only to our clients in specific inquiries that they address to us. If you are interested in becoming a client, please contact us, but do not send any information about your specific legal question. We cannot serve as your lawyers until we establish an attorney-client relationship, which can occur only after we follow procedures within our firm and after we agree to the terms of the representation.

Accept Cancel