United States: Delaware Chancery Looks To Pre-Announcement Stock Price For Fair Value In Appraisal Proceeding

On February 15, 2018, the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware issued a decision regarding the fair value of Aruba Networks, Inc. in an appraisal proceeding.1 Vice Chancellor Laster ("VC Laster") chose a result "no one argued for." He determined that the fair value of Aruba Networks, Inc. was not the deal price or the price determined by valuation experts—it was the thirty-day average unaffected market price of Aruba's shares before the deal was announced. This client alert provides a short overview of the case and a discussion of three important take-aways from the decision:

  • the importance of the unaffected market price in light of the Delaware Supreme Court's Dell 2 and DFC 3 decisions
  • a reminder that the Court is seeking fair value, not the highest possible value in appraisal proceedings, and
  • the importance of well-supported expert analyses.


Hewlett-Packard Company ("HP") acquired Aruba Networks, Inc. ("Aruba") in May 2015 for $24.67 per share. Aruba, located in California, "sold components for enterprise wireless local area networks." Aruba was publicly traded with its common stock listed on the NASDAQ since 2007.

HP first approached Aruba about the possibility of an acquisition in August 2014. HP believed a combination of its wired networking products and Aruba's products could effectively compete with Cisco. After being approached by HP, Aruba engaged financial advisors who were unable to identify any other interested strategic buyers.

After months of due diligence, by November 2014, no offer from HP was presented to Aruba, and Aruba ended discussions. HP continued to analyze the deal, and engaged consultants McKinsey & Company to study the business case, and financial advisors Barclays Capital to assist with valuations of Aruba. On January 31, 2015, HP sent an offer to Aruba for $23.25 per share, approximately $4 to $14 less per share than Barclay's valuation indications, which included synergies, based on the discounted cash flow ("DCF") method. This offer represented a 35.1 percent premium to Aruba's thirty-day average price.

Aruba countered HP's offer at $29 per share, to which HP responded with another offer of $24.67 per share on February 9, 2015, which equated to an aggregate consideration of $3 billion. Aruba again countered at $25 per share, but HP did not alter its offer.

On February 25, 2015, the acquisition negotiations were reported by the news. Aruba's publicly-traded share price increased to $22.24. Aruba's thirty-day average unaffected market price was $17.13 per share. Ultimately, HP and Aruba agreed to $24.67 per share. Both of Aruba's financial advisors, Qatalyst and Evercore, opined the deal price was fair to Aruba's shareholders. Barclays, HP's financial advisors, valued Aruba between $27.53 and $39.69 with synergies, and opined the deal price was fair to HP. The Court considered the merger to be a "run-of-the-mill, third-party deal."

Unaffected Market Price is Important

The Court leaned on the guidance from the Delaware Supreme Court in Dell and DFC when reviewing the evidence presented in this case regarding the efficiency of the market for Aruba's stock. The Court described the publicly-traded price of Aruba as "likely a possible proxy for fair value," citing Dell. While the petitioners provided evidence of market mispricing, VC Laster regarded "the petitioners' evidence of market mispricing as considerably weaker than what [he] abused [his] discretion by crediting in Dell." While the petitioners raised concerns regarding strong quarterly results that the market only learned about commensurate with the announcement of the merger, the Court concluded that "neither side proved that Aruba's value had changed materially by closing."

In addition to considering the market price, the Court also considered the deal price and the deal-price-less-synergies value in its analysis. In considering the deal price, VC Laster noted under a circumstance where the underlying market price is reliable, competition and negotiation become secondary, and an arm's-length deal at a premium over the market price (i.e., what occurred in the Aruba transaction according to the Court) is non-exploitive. VC Laster stated such a result gives stockholders "what would fairly be given to them in an arm's length transaction," citing DFC.

However, VC Laster also explained under the DFC decision, it is to be assumed the buyer here (HP) shared some of its synergies in the deal with Aruba's stockholders. Considering the inclusion of said synergies, as well as the petitioners' failure to identify a bidder who would pay more than HP's offer, VC Laster concluded "the deal price in this case operates as a ceiling for fair value." VC Laster then discusses deal-price-less-synergies as an indication of fair value, and discusses how "the court must exclude 'any synergies or other value expected from the merger giving rise to the appraisal proceeding itself.'" After expressing the difficulties in quantifying such adjustments, he then calculates a deal-price-less-synergies indication of fair value to be $18.20 per share.

VC Laster then considers the respective merits of the unaffected market price and his calculation of deal-price-less-synergies. He notes the deal-price-less-synergies value is an indirect measure with two significant sources of uncertainty: (i) measurement error, and (ii) the need to back out further elements of value from the merger that may have been shared with seller, namely reduced agency costs from unitary ownership. Because the deal-price-less-synergies approach is an indirect measure that still requires two steps (i.e., backing out synergies and reduced agency costs) that are "messy and provide ample opportunities for error," VC Laster concludes the unaffected market price is the most appropriate indication of fair value since it distills "the collective judgment of the many based on all the publicly available information about a given company and the value of its shares," citing DFC.

VC Laster concludes the thirty-day average unaffected market price ($17.13 per share) is the most persuasive evidence of fair value "at least for a company that is widely traded and lacks a controlling stockholder," which is the case here. In supporting a determination the market is sufficiently efficient to warrant the use of the unaffected market price of Aruba, VC Laster describes the pace at which Aruba's stock price would adjust to good and bad news. He then offers some of Aruba's market data measurements, namely: market capitalization, shares in the public float, public float as % of outstanding shares, bid/ask spreads, and equity analyst coverage, as viewed within the framework established by the DFC and Dell cases, to indicate Aruba's market price provides reliable evidence of its fair value. VC Laster adds "'the price produced by an efficient market is generally a more reliable assessment of fair value than the view of a single analyst," citing Dell.

Reminder: Fair Value, not the Highest Possible Value

Throughout the opinion, VC Laster reminds the reader the "ultimate goal in an appraisal proceeding is to determine the 'fair or intrinsic value' of each share on the closing date of the merger. [And t]o accomplish this task, 'the court should first envisage the entire pre-merger company as a 'going concern,' as a standalone entity, and assess its value as such.'" VC Laster consistently reminds the reader fair value is not the "highest possible bid," nor the "highest conceivable value," but rather "whether the dissenters got fair value," which "entails at minimum a price some buyer is willing to pay." VC Laster considers the Aruba merger to be at arm's length, noting that there was no majority shareholder, it was not a management buyout situation, and the board of directors was independent. While the petitioners questioned the negotiating tactics of the financial advisors, the Court notes that Aruba was unable to attract another strategic buyer. VC Laster cites the Dell decision in supporting the deal price as a ceiling here, stating that since '"no strategic buyer [was] interested..., it does not suggest a higher value, but a lower one.'"

Expert Opinions Being Well-Founded

While the Court ultimately determined the unaffected stock price was the most relevant indication for purposes of determining fair value, the opinion does address the valuation expert opinions provided by both parties. Both the petitioner and the respondent experts relied on the income approach, specifically the DCF methodology, to determine fair value. The petitioner's expert opined the fair value of Aruba was $32.57 per share, while the respondent's expert ultimately opined the fair value of Aruba was $19.75 per share.

VC Laster described the petitioner expert's methodology, stating: "[h]is model generally adhered to the valuation literature and the teachings of the Delaware courts. From a methodological perspective, his model appears sound." VC Laster's concerns with the petitioner expert's opinion were twofold. First, he noted the divergence and "key contrasts" of the expert's results from Aruba's market indications. VC Laster calculates the extent to which the petitioner expert's opinion is greater than: the deal price (+ 32 percent), the mean of the last batch of unaffected analyst stock price targets (+ 39 percent), the mean of the financial advisors' final valuation midpoints (+ 21 percent), and lastly, "nearly double Aruba's thirty-day average unaffected market price." Second, VC Laster found concern with the beta (an input to the analysis) used by the expert. The Court noted that while the data supported the beta used by the expert, "no one could offer a good explanation as to why the number was so low."

VC Laster had different concerns regarding the respondent expert's analysis. The respondent's expert estimated the fair value to be $19.75 per share at trial, which the Court noted was "serendipitously" just ten cents below the valuation in the expert's opening report (he had changed course after an evidentiary ruling precluded him from rending an opinion on stock-based compensation). VC Laster described the respondent expert's "meandering route" to an opinion along with his "unstructured approaches to valuation inputs" as causes for concern. The Court noted that the expert "punted" on the issues of beta and size premium, and "made a significant judgement call by selecting a WACC from a menu of possibilities, rather than calculating a beta to generate a WACC as contemplated by CAPM." The expert presented 14 possible WACC selections, some based off his own calculations, others from Aruba and HP's financials advisors, and lastly, some from equity analysts, before choosing a WACC of 11 percent from this list. Finally, the respondent's expert relied on a set of projections that he had created himself using industry growth rates, and subsequently testified at trial that he did not have any independent expertise to determine whether the industrywide growth rates were a reasonable proxy for Aruba's expected future performance.


The discussion above is a continuing reminder of the importance for valuation experts to not only rely on a theoretically sound approach, but to reconcile their opinions within the context of market data, as necessary and when available and reasonable. In this case, both valuation experts' opinions were essentially disregarded and VC Laster selected the unaffected market price prior to the announcement of the merger as the fair value even though "no one argued for this result."

This article does not address every issue addressed by the Court, and there are other issues addressed by the Court that litigators, board of directors, dissenting shareholders, and valuation practitioners should review. We strongly encourage the reader to read the Aruba Networks decision in full and determine for themselves what they consider to be the most key findings.


1 Verition Partners Master Fund Ltd. v. Aruba Networks, Inc. C.A. No. 11448-VCL. (Del. Feb. 15, 2018).

2 Dell, Inc. v. Magnetar Glob. Event Driven Master Fund Ltd, – A.3d –, 2017 WL 6375829 (Del. Dec. 14, 2017).

3 DFC Glob. Corp. v. Muirfield Value P'rs, L.P., 172 A.3d 346 (Del. 2017).

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
In association with
Related Topics
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Related Articles
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.


The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.


Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions