This site uses cookies to improve your experience. To help us insure we adhere to various privacy regulations, please select your country/region of residence. If you do not select a country, we will assume you are from the United States. Select your Cookie Settings or view our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Used for the proper function of the website
Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Strictly Necessary: Used for the proper function of the website
Performance/Analytics: Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
The case Dieckman v. Regency GP LP , No. CV 11130-CB, 2019 WL 5576886 (Del. Ch. Oct. 29, 2019) does not concern appraisal rights – at least not directly. But the history of the merger in that case is a valuable reminder that an investor expecting to use the appraisal remedy must follow the transaction from start to finish. In January 2015 ETP agreed to acquire Regency “for 0.4044 ETP units and $0.36 per common unit of Regency” quickly modified to “0.4066 ETP units plus $0.32”.
As we’ve covered before , numerous investment funds support appraisal rights by setting out that they will vote for proposals to restore or add appraisal rights if those proposals are placed on a proxy ballot. Hancock Horizon, a Louisiana based investment fund, is yet another investor supporting appraisal via its proxy materials. Hancock Horizon, like many other funds, states that it votes on mergers on a case by case basis.
Whether communications or work product by a third party destroy the privilege enjoyed between attorney and client is a hotly contested issue in litigation, and appraisal is no exception. For instance, the New York Appellate Division recently held that a valuation report created by a third-party consulting firm to appraise the plaintiff’s stock in the company was not protected by attorney-client privilege.
We organize all of the trending information in your field so you don't have to. Join 8,000+ users and stay up to date on the latest articles your peers are reading.
You know about us, now we want to get to know you!
Let's personalize your content
Let's get even more personalized
We recognize your account from another site in our network, please click 'Send Email' below to continue with verifying your account and setting a password.
Let's personalize your content