Charland v. Country View Golf Club, Inc. case brief summary
588 A.2d 609
CASE FACTS
Plaintiff minority shareholder brought suit against defendant corporation under R.I. Gen. Laws § 7-1.1-90 (Reenactment 1985) to dissolve defendant corporation. Defendant corporation moved under R.I. Gen. Laws § 7-1.1-90.1 to purchase plaintiff's shares.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
The lower court entered a judgment discounting plaintiff's shares .Plaintiff appealed.
DISCUSSION
CONCLUSION
The supreme court reversed the lower court's judgment, holding that plaintiff was entitled to fair market value of his shares and no discount should have been given to the shares because of their minority status and lack of marketability.
Suggested law school study materials
Shop Amazon for the best prices on Law School Course Materials.
588 A.2d 609
CASE SYNOPSIS
Plaintiff appealed an order from the
Superior Court Providence County (Rhode Island) in which the court
entered judgment on plaintiff's complaint to dissolve the corporation
under R.I. Gen. Laws §§ 7-1.1-90 (Reenactment 1985) discounting
plaintiff's shares because of their minority status and lack of
marketability.CASE FACTS
Plaintiff minority shareholder brought suit against defendant corporation under R.I. Gen. Laws § 7-1.1-90 (Reenactment 1985) to dissolve defendant corporation. Defendant corporation moved under R.I. Gen. Laws § 7-1.1-90.1 to purchase plaintiff's shares.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
The lower court entered a judgment discounting plaintiff's shares .Plaintiff appealed.
DISCUSSION
- The supreme court reversed the lower court's judgment, holding that plaintiff's shares should not have been discounted based on its minority status or lack of marketability.
- The supreme court held that minority shareholders should not receive less than fair market value for their shares if, instead of fighting the dissolution action, the majority decides to seek appraisal of minority shares in order to buy out the minority.
- The court further held that a lack of marketability discount was inapposite when a corporation elected to buy out a shareholder that filed for dissolution of a corporation.
CONCLUSION
The supreme court reversed the lower court's judgment, holding that plaintiff was entitled to fair market value of his shares and no discount should have been given to the shares because of their minority status and lack of marketability.
Suggested law school study materials
Shop Amazon for the best prices on Law School Course Materials.
No comments:
Post a Comment