From our private database of 35,600+ case briefs...
Cede & Co. v. Technicolor, Inc.
Delaware Court of Chancery
1990 WL 161084 (1990)
The motion picture film-processing company Technicolor, Inc. (defendant) was involved in a cash-out merger. Expert testimony from Professor Rappaport was introduced by Technicolor to explain the capital asset pricing model (CAPM) methodology used to estimate the fair value of Technicolor’s common stock. The CAPM involved combining the company’s cost of equity and debt to estimate the cost of capital. As part of the calculation, the market-risk premium was determined by using the coefficient beta to represent the volatility or risk associated with the stock. Typically, a higher beta represented a riskier or more volatile stock which, in turn, led to a higher cost of capital. Rappaport used a 1.7 beta based on the recommendation of Merrill Lynch. However, the 1.7 beta was recommended right after the merger announcement. The following month, Merrill Lynch recommended a 1.27 beta, after the volatility had calmed down. In Rappaport’s testimony, he also explained that he modified the cost of capital calculation by including a 4 percent premium on the original CAPM calculation because of the small-capitalization effect. The small-capitalization effect involved imposing a premium over the CAPM computation for smaller companies based on a recognition that the CAPM estimates a slightly lower cost of equity for smaller companies. Following the calculations, Rappaport found that the cost of capital was 20.4 percent for all of Technicolor’s divisions except for three divisions that had a different cash flow. For the other three divisions, the cost of capital was 17.3 percent. Expert testimony from Torkelsen was also introduced. Torkelsen explained that he formed a different calculation based on using a range of discount rates. The expert testimony was then evaluated in an appraisal proceeding in the Delaware Court of Chancery.
Rule of Law
Holding and Reasoning (Allen, J.)
What to do next…
Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.
You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 618,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.
Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee
Here's why 618,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 35,600 briefs, keyed to 984 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.