Company: LBRDK
Filing Date: 2025-01-22
Form Type: DEFM14A
Source: 0001140361-25-001609
Chunk: 229

Company: Liberty Broadband Corp
Filing Date: 2025-01-22
Form: DEFM14A
Chunk 229
---

<div align='center'>117</div>

#### TABLE OF CONTENTS
during the pendency of the proceedings, if any, to the stockholders and beneficial owners entitled to receive the same, upon surrender by such stockholders of their stock certificates and book-entry shares. Payment will be made to each such person upon such terms and conditions as the Delaware Court of Chancery may order.

In determining the fair value of shares of capital stock, the Delaware Court of Chancery is required to take into account all relevant factors. In Weinberger v. UOP, Inc. , the Delaware Supreme Court discussed the factors that could be considered in determining fair value in an appraisal proceeding, stating that “proof of value by any techniques or methods which are generally considered acceptable in the financial community and otherwise admissible in court” should be considered and that “[f]air price obviously requires consideration of all relevant factors involving the value of a company.” The Delaware Supreme Court has stated that, in making this determination of fair value, the court must consider market value, asset value, dividends, earnings prospects, the nature of the enterprise and any other facts which could be ascertained as of the date of the merger which throw any light on future prospects of the merged corporation. Section 262 of the DGCL provides that fair value is to be “exclusive of any element of value arising from the accomplishment or expectation of the merger.” In Cede & Co. v. Technicolor, Inc. , the Delaware Supreme Court stated that such exclusion is a “narrow exclusion [that] does not encompass known elements of value,” but which rather applies only to the speculative elements of value arising from such accomplishment or expectation. In Weinberger , the Delaware Supreme Court construed Section 262 of the DGCL to mean that “elements of future value, including the nature of the enterprise, which are known or susceptible of proof as of the date of the merger and not the product of speculation, may be considered.” In addition, the Delaware courts have decided that the statutory appraisal remedy, depending on factual circumstances, may or may not be a dissenting stockholder’s exclusive remedy. An opinion of an investment banking firm as to the fairness from a financial point of view of the consideration payable in a merger is not an opinion as to, and does not in any manner address, fair value under Section 262 of the DGCL. The fair value of shares as determined under Section 262 of the DGCL could be greater than, the same as, or less than the value of