Search for: "Friedman v. Beway Realty Corp"
Results 1 - 9
of 9
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
8 May 2023, 4:01 am
The basic approach to the determination of fair value is the same: While neither statute defines “fair value,” almost 30 years ago New York’s highest court, in Friedman v Beway Realty, declared “there is no difference in analysis between stock fair value determinations under Business Corporation Law § 623, and fair value determinations under Business Corporation Law § 1118. [read post]
6 Aug 2018, 3:15 am
“[T]here is no difference in analysis between stock fair value determinations under Business Corporation Law 623 and fair value determinations under Business Corporation Law 1118” (Matter of Friedman v Beway Realty Corp., 87 NY2d 161 [1995]). [read post]
26 Apr 2018, 2:36 pm
The New York Court of Appeals, in Congel v. [read post]
2 Apr 2018, 3:50 am
Judge Fahey’s opinion, drawing upon the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court’s 2004 ruling in Anastos v Sable, agreed with the m [read post]
23 May 2016, 3:22 am
Justice Dickerson noted that, in declining to apply a minority discount, the trial court cited the Court of Appeals’ 1995 decision in Matter of Friedman v Beway Realty Corp. [read post]
24 Dec 2012, 2:00 am
Beway Realty Corp., 87 NY2d 161 (1995), but agreed that no DLOM should be applied based on the hearing officer’s findings that the subject portfolio of properties had unique attributes rendering shares in the holding corporations readily marketable. [read post]
15 Aug 2011, 3:00 am
Beway Realty Corp., 87 NY2d 161 (1995). [read post]
2 May 2011, 4:00 am
Friedman. [read post]
5 May 2008, 4:30 am
Here's what the court said: Nor, contrary to plaintiffs' contention, does the buyout of a deceased partner's interest implicate all of the factors that our courts have relied upon in denying discounts in the corporate minority or dissenting shareholder contexts (see Matter of Penepent Corp., 96 NY2d 186, 194 [2001]; Matter of Friedman v Beway Realty Corp., 87 NY2d 161, 167, 169-170 [1995]). [read post]