Search for: "State v. Associates Discount Corporation"
Results 1 - 20
of 252
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
24 Dec 2012, 2:00 am
The Marketability Discount Unlike in many other states, DLOM is recognized in New York’s fair-value jurisprudence as an appropriate consideration in valuing ownership interests in closely held business entities, that accounts for the greater time and risk associated with the sale of corporate shares for which there is no public market. [read post]
23 May 2016, 3:22 am
Justice Dickerson’s opinion also drew support from a 2004 ruling by the Massachusetts Supreme Court in Anastos v Sable in which that court upheld application of a minority discount to the valuation of the partnership interest of a partner who wrongfully dissolved the partnership under that state’s statute equivalent to New York Partnership Law § 69. [read post]
22 Jun 2009, 4:00 am
In determining the fair value of corporate shares, should the discount for lack of marketability (DLOM) apply only to the company's good will value, or to the entire enterprise value including tangible assets? [read post]
22 Jan 2014, 12:34 am
(He and his team at Charles River Associates in [read post]
2 May 2011, 4:00 am
Referee Crespo also bases his rejection of DLOM on case law, including Vick v. [read post]
18 Mar 2011, 11:58 am
See, e.g., Hale v. [read post]
15 Aug 2011, 3:00 am
JHO Lehner rejects any consideration of minority discount, quoting from Friedman v. [read post]
14 Jun 2020, 5:00 pm
In Magarik v. [read post]
13 Oct 2014, 3:27 am
To this date Emil remains in a vegetative state. [read post]
11 Oct 2017, 12:00 am
In Olagues v. [read post]
11 Feb 2016, 7:34 am
RUEDA, Appellant V. [read post]
27 Jan 2014, 3:35 am
On January 29th, the Commercial and Federal Litigation Section of the New York State Bar Association, in conjunction with the State Bar’s annual meeting held at the Hilton Hotel in midtown Manhattan, is presenting an exciting CLE program on The Interplay of Delaware and New York Law in Resolving Corporate and Commercial Disputes. [read post]
23 Feb 2015, 3:19 am
There are increased costs and risks associated with corporate ownership of the real estate in this case that would not be present if the real estate was owned outright. [read post]
2 Jul 2014, 12:07 pm
In Abood v. [read post]
24 Aug 2010, 2:18 am
The omission of a single letter from the mark such as an “s” in Tire Discounters, Inc. v. [read post]
25 May 2012, 12:52 pm
In association with Bloomberg Law [read post]
3 Jan 2011, 3:00 am
Beckerman, 126 AD2d 591 (2d Dept 1987), and Muller v. [read post]
6 Nov 2012, 1:08 pm
We can’t help but wring our hands a little over this type of discounting of established corporate structure. [read post]
18 Nov 2010, 1:18 pm
Eighth, Cabcharge is entitled to some discount for cooperating with the ACCC. [read post]
11 Aug 2017, 8:15 am
One such case is XYZ Corporation v. [read post]
