Company Valuation: A Comparison of Economic and Legal Perspectives
Authors: Gregory Alan , Hicks Andrew 
Published: January 2008

This article reviews the way in which the law in England and Wales considers the valuation of companies, and argues that the issues arising from this legal perspective are indicative of a gap between the economic theory and practice of company valuation. Furthermore, an analysis of the relevant case law reveals several interesting practical difficulties which may suggest a role for theoretical analysis. Equally, a lack of awareness of the economic theory of valuation is revealed on the part of the courts. It is argued that this lack of awareness may have implications for the practices of valuation by professional accounting firms that are currently observed in the UK. An examination of the theory of company valuation shows that there is widespread agreement on the basic principle of the approach to be followed in valuing the shares in a company; in short, it is the present value of the company's future cash flows. Although there is debate over issues such as the appropriate model to be used in pricing risk, and how to allow for the impact of taxation in arriving at the discount rate, this principle appears to be universally accepted. Although some investigations have been carried out into the practical context of company valuation in the UK (Arnold and Moizer 1984, Moizer and Arnold 1984, Day 1986, and Keane 1992), no attention has been paid in the economics and accounting literature to the legal context. This is perhaps surprising given that the courts are sometimes important users of company valuation reports. This article reviews the way in which the law in England and Wales considers the valuation of companies, and argues that the issues arising from this legal perspective are indicative of a gap between the economic theory and practice of company valuation. Furthermore, an analysis of the relevant case law reveals several interesting practical difficulties which may suggest a role for theoretical analysis. Equally, a lack of awareness of the economic theory of valuation is revealed on the part of the courts. Historically, one of the features of the English commercial courts has been their refusal to become involved in matters of commercial judgement. English judges have held themselves to be sophisticated technicians in law but self‐professed amateurs in commercial matters. Their role has been to hear expert witnesses and to weigh up their professional advice. This contrasts with the position in continental courts; for example in France, the judges sitting at first instance in the lower commercial courts are businessmen and women rather than lawyers, with the result that their approach and findings are likely to be less legalistic and more commercial. This English legal approach needs to be seen in the context of an increasing concern with valuation attributable to the changes brought about by Sections 459 to 461 of the Companies Act 1985, together with the recent case law. Section 459 of the Act is concerned with minority unfair prejudice actions and under that section a member may petition the court for an order on the grounds that the petitioner's interests have been, are being or will be unfairly prejudiced by the conduct of the company's affairs. A considerable body of case law has built up on what constitutes unfairly prejudicial conduct. Under section 461 the court may make such order as it thinks fit for giving relief including the purchase of the shares of any member of the company by other members or by the company itself. Here the crucial question for the courts and for the parties negotiating a buy‐out in the shadow of the courts is the amount of the valuation and the factor to be taken into account in reaching that valuation. In such circumstances, it might be expected that there would be considerable concern with the basis of the valuation. However, ‘basis’ can have several different meanings; in the first place, it could be defined as asset basis, in the sense that a valuation may be concerned with the replacement, ‘going concern’ or realisable value of the firm's assets. Second, there is a need to define what economic model has been used to derive the ‘going concern’ or economic value; it may be helpful to describe this as the economic model basis of the valuation. Third, there is the question as to whether the proportion of the equity held affects the value; this might be termed the control basis. As we show below, the concern of the theoretical literature is primarily with the second category, whereas the case law tends to concern itself with the first and third categories. In order to clarify the theoretical and practical considerations involved, the first section of this paper briefly reviews the theory of equity valuation and the second contrasts this with the rather limited evidence on UK valuation practice. In the third section, the legal issues involved are explained and the way in which the courts proceed in cases which involve the valuation of shares are reviewed. Although the courts rely on expert evidence in making a valuation, certain principles and guidelines for valuation are laid down by the courts, and these are analysed and contrasted with the prescriptions on valuation found in the finance literature.