Did Adoption of Forward-Looking Valuation Methods Improve Valuation Accuracy in Shareholder Litigation?

2007 ◽  
Vol 22 (4) ◽  
pp. 573-598 ◽  
Author(s):  
Feng Chen ◽  
Kenton K. Yee ◽  
Yong Keun Yoo
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Cash Flow ◽  
Earnings Forecasts ◽  
Block Method ◽  
Valuation Methods ◽  
Valuation Method ◽  
Shareholder Litigation ◽  
The Law ◽  
Case Basis ◽  
Forward Looking

Before 1984, Delaware judges relied exclusively on the Delaware Block method—an appraisal formula based on trailing earnings and liquidation value—to price shares in shareholder litigation. In 1984, the Delaware Supreme Court changed the law to permit its judges to use any valuation method they deem appropriate. As a result, judges and litigants began switching from the Block method and adopting forward-looking valuation techniques based on cash flow and earnings forecasts. While the use of forward-looking methods potentially improves valuation accuracy by incorporating forecast information, the use of forecasts allows more room for subjective manipulation. Did the adoption of forward-looking methods improve or reduce valuation accuracy in shareholder litigation? We address this question using a comprehensive hand-collected sample of all Delaware corporate “appraisal-remedy” cases published between 1966 and 2002 in Lexis-Nexis. The sample identifies, on a case-by-case basis, the plaintiff's, the defendant's, and the judge's valuation methods and resulting valuation estimates. We show that the adoption of forward-looking valuation methods improves litigants' valuation accuracy on average.

scholarly journals Analysts’ recommendations and the market impact of the valuation methods

2019 ◽  
Vol 8 (4) ◽  
pp. 46-55
Author(s):  
Elisa Cavezzali ◽  
Enrico Maria Cervellati ◽  
Pierpaolo Pattitoni ◽  
Ugo Rigoni
Keyword(s):  
Market Reaction ◽  
Abnormal Returns ◽  
Earnings Forecasts ◽  
Cash Flows ◽  
Market Impact ◽  
Target Price ◽  
Valuation Methods ◽  
Valuation Method ◽  
Study Methodology ◽  
Recommendation Revisions

Despite its importance, the informative value of the analysts’ valuation methods has not been thoroughly examined in the literature. Such an issue is relevant with regard to the concerns on analysts’ objectivity. We test whether investors’ reaction is jointly influenced by recommendations and target revisions and mainly by valuation method used because it summarizes the information considered to be relevant by the analysts. We analyse the market reaction to recommendation revisions with an event study methodology, calculating market-adjusted abnormal returns at the report release date. We run regressions to test the market impact of recommendations and target price revisions, as well as their interaction, and we then focus on testing several models to discern market reaction to distinct valuation methods. We show that market reaction is influenced by the valuation methods used in their reports. The majority of previous studies relying on commercial databases report the market reaction in relation to analysts’ recommendations, target prices or earnings forecasts, often overlooking the content of the reports and the methodology used therein. This is due to an information constraint of commercial databases, normally including only the above-mentioned synthetic variables. A notable exception is Asquith, Mikhail, and Au (2005) who find no relation between the market reaction and the valuation methods used by analysts. Compared to Asquith et al. (2005), our research uses a larger database and finds a different result. We show the market reacts differently to distinct valuation methods, without favouring the theoretically more correct ones based on discounting cash flows. We also find that the market reaction is larger when the analysts support their recommendation with more than one valuation method. Our research shows that the market pays attention to the content of the reports and analysts can be more influential when they use more valuation methodologies to cross-check their estimates.

PERSINGGUNGAN KEWENANGAN MENGADILI PENYALAHGUNAAN DISKRESI ANTARA PENGADILAN TUN DAN PENGADILAN TIPIKOR / INTERCEPTION OF JUSTICE AUTHORITY OF DISCRETION ABUSE BETWEEN ADMINISTRATION COURT AND CORRUPTION COURTS

2018 ◽  
Vol 7 (2) ◽  
pp. 213
Author(s):  
Budi Suhariyanto
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Criminal Law ◽  
Administrative Law ◽  
The State ◽  
Government Officials ◽  
Criminal Process ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
State Finance ◽  
The Law ◽  
To Receive

Diskresi sebagai wewenang bebas, keberadaannya rentan akan disalahgunakan. Penyalahgunaan diskresi yang berimplikasi merugikan keuangan negara dapat dituntutkan pertanggungjawabannya secara hukum administrasi maupun hukum pidana. Mengingat selama ini peraturan perundang-undangan tentang pemberantasan tindak pidana korupsi tidak merumuskan secara rinci yang dimaksudkan unsur menyalahgunakan kewenangan maka para hakim menggunakan konsep penyalahgunaan wewenang dari hukum administrasi. Problema muncul saat diberlakukannya Undang-Undang Nomor 30 Tahun 2014 dimana telah memicu persinggungan dalam hal kewenangan mengadili penyalahgunaan wewenang (termasuk diskresi) antara Pengadilan Tata Usaha Negara dengan Pengadilan Tindak Pidana Korupsi. Pada perkembangannya, persinggungan kewenangan mengadili tersebut ditegaskan oleh Peraturan Mahkamah Agung Nomor 4 Tahun 2015 bahwa PTUN berwenang menerima, memeriksa, dan memutus permohonan penilaian ada atau tidak ada penyalahgunaan wewenang (termasuk diskresi) dalam Keputusan dan/atau Tindakan Pejabat Pemerintahan sebelum adanya proses pidana. Sehubungan tidak dijelaskan tentang definisi dan batasan proses pidana yang dimaksud, maka timbul penafsiran yang berbeda. Perlu diadakan kesepakatan bersama dan dituangkan dalam regulasi tentang tapal batas persinggungan yang jelas tanpa meniadakan kewenangan pengujian penyalahgunaan wewenang diskresi pada Pengadilan TUN.Discretion as free authority is vulnerable to being misused. The abuse of discretion implicating the state finance may be prosecuted by both administrative and criminal law. In view of the fact that the law on corruption eradication does not formulate in detail the intended element of authority abuse, the judges use the concept of authority abuse from administrative law. Problems arise when the enactment of Law No. 30 of 2014 triggered an interception in terms of justice/ adjudicate authority on authority abuse (including discretion) between the Administrative Court and Corruption Court. In its development, the interception of justice authority is affirmed by Regulation of the Supreme Court Number 4 of 2015 that the Administrative Court has the authority to receive, examine and decide upon the appeal there is or there is no misuse of authority in the Decision and / or Action of Government Officials prior to the criminal process. That is, shortly before the commencement of the criminal process then that's when the authority of PTUN decides to judge the misuse of authority over the case. In this context, Perma No. 4 of 2015 has imposed restrictions on the authority of the TUN Court in prosecuting the abuse of discretionary authority.

STUDI KASUS PENETAPAN KEMBALI TARIF DAN/ATAU NILAI PABEAN (SPKTNP) OLEH DIREKTUR JENDERAL BEA DAN CUKAI: TINJAUAN PUTUSAN PENINJAUAN KEMBALI MAHKAMAH AGUNG RI

2018 ◽  
Vol 2 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Akhmad Firdiansyah ◽  
Wachid Hasyim ◽  
Yonathan Agung Pahlevi
Keyword(s):  
Qualitative Analysis ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Director General ◽  
Import Duty ◽  
Legal Norms ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Law

ABSTRACT In accordance with the mandate of Article 23A of the 1945 Constitution, all tax stipulations must be based on the law. To carry out the mandate in accordance with Article 17 of the Customs Law Number 17 of 2006, the Director General of Customs and Excise is given the attributive authority to issue reassignment letter on Customs Tariff and / or Value for the calculation of import duty within two years starting from the date of customs notification carried out through a mechanism of audit or re-research. To examine the application of these legal norms, there are currently Supreme Court (MA) Judgment (PK) decisions that accept PK applications from PK applicants and question the legality of issuing SPKTNP by the Director General of BC. This study uses explosive qualitative analysis to analyze the issuance of SPKTNP by the Director General of BC. The results of this study indicate that the Supreme Court is of the view that the issuance of SPKTNP by the Director General of BC is a legal defect, while DGCE considers the issuance of SPKTNP by the Director General of BC according to the provisions.Key words: official decision, reassignment letter, DCGE  ABSTRAKSesuai amanah Pasal 23A Undang-Undang Dasar 1945 Segala penetapan pajak harus berdasar undang-undang. Untuk menjalankan amanah tersebut sesuai Pasal 17 Undang-Undang Kepabeanan Nomor 17 Tahun 2006 Direktur Jenderal Bea dan Cukai (Dirjen BC) diberikan kewenangan atributif untuk menerbitkan Surat Penetapan Kembali Tarif dan/atau Nilai Pabean (SPKTNP) guna penghitungan bea masuk dalam jangka waktu dua tahun terhitung sejak tanggal pemberitahuan pabean yang dilakukan melalui mekanisme audit atau penelitian ulang. Untuk meneliti penerapan norma hukum tersebut dewasa ini terdapat putusan Peninjauan Kembali (PK) Mahkamah Agung (MA) yang menerima permohonan PK dari pemohon PK dan mempermasalahkan legalitas penerbitan SPKTNP oleh Dirjen BC. Penelitian ini mengunakan analisis kualitatif eksplotarif untuk menganalisis penerbitan SPKTNP oleh Dirjen BC. Hasil penelitian ini menunjukkan bahwa MA berpandangan penerbitan SPKTNP oleh Dirjen BC adalah cacat hukum, sedangkan DJBC beranggapan penerbitan SPKTNP oleh Dirjen BC telah sesuai ketentuan.Kata Kunci: penetapan pejabat, SPKTNP, Direktur Jenderal Bea dan Cukai.

Private International Law

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
V.C. Govindaraj
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
International Law ◽  
Private International Law ◽  
Conflict Of Laws ◽  
Application Of Law ◽  
Cross Border ◽  
Corrective Measures ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Law

In deciding cases of private international law or conflict of laws, as it is widely known, judges of the Supreme Court in India generally consult the works of renowned English jurists like Dicey and Cheshire. This volume argues that our country should have its own system of resolving inter-territorial issues with cross-border implications. The author critically analyses cases covering areas such as the law of obligations, the law of persons, the law of property, foreign judgments, and foreign arbitral awards. The author provides his perspectives on the application of law in each case. The idea is to find out where the judges went wrong in deciding cases of private international law, so that corrective measures can be taken in future to resolve disputes involving complex, extra-territorial issues.

Transforming the Law on Psychiatric Lesions

2021 ◽  
Vol 2021 (2) ◽  
pp. 253-271
Author(s):  
Emile Zitzke
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Expert Witnesses ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Psychological Harm ◽  
The Law ◽  
Constitutional Right ◽  
Law Of Delict ◽  
Court Of Appeal ◽  
Made In

In this article, I trace the development in the law of delict of recognising general damages claims on account of psychiatric lesions with the aim of making suggestions on how to transform it. Using the tragic case of Michael Komape as a springboard for the discussion, I argue that even though the Supreme Court of Appeal has recently brought clarity on the law on psychiatric lesions, more transformative work still needs to be done. More specifically, this article contends that the constitutional right to bodily and psychological integrity might require us to rethink the high evidentiary threshold that courts have set for proving the element of harm in cases related to psychiatric lesions. I argue that this can be done in at least three ways: First, by very cautiously bringing about a development that would involve protecting victims of psychological harm whose expert witnesses are shown to be inadequate despite all other facts indicating the existence of a psychiatric lesion. Secondly, by lowering the requirement of “recognised psychiatric lesion” to “grievous mental injury”, in line with similar arguments made in England. Thirdly, and most controversially, by acknowledging that perhaps the time has come for our law to recognise claims for so-called “grief in the air”.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document