Opinion ID: 2630611
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Asset Value

Text: ¶ 20 The district court had no evidence of asset value before it, and neither party contested the court's disregard of this factor. As justification for ignoring asset value, the district court cited Hansen v. 75 Ranch Co., 288 Mont. 310, 957 P.2d 32, 42 (1998) ([C]ourts have noted that unless the corporation is undergoing an actual liquidation, the liquidation method is not an appropriate method of valuing shares of a dissenting shareholder.). Other courts have also emphasized that in the absence of actual liquidation a corporation must be valued as a going concern. ¶ 21 The Iowa Supreme Court, in Woodward v. Quigley, 257 Iowa 1077, 133 N.W.2d 38 (1965), stated that [i]n this particular case we are not seriously handicapped by the absence of satisfactory evidence of net asset value. Here, as in most instances, investment value is of much greater importance. Id. at 42; see also Cede & Co. v. Technicolor, Inc., 684 A.2d 289, 299 (Del.1996) (stating that an understatement of fair value may result from failure to value company as a going concern); Friedman v. Beway Realty Corp., 87 N.Y.2d 161, 638 N.Y.S.2d 399, 661 N.E.2d 972, 976 (1995) (stating that a determination of fair value of dissenters' shares should be based on their worth in a going concern, not in liquidation); Elk Yarn Mills v. 514 Shares of Common Stock, 742 S.W.2d 638, 642 (Tenn.Ct.App.1987) (noting that the overwhelming weight of authority approves valuation of the assets of the corporation as a going concern). ¶ 22 Minority shareholders owned stock in a going concern, and liquidation was not a prospect. Zinetics was primarily a manufacturing rather than a property-based corporation. Therefore, we conclude that Oakridge Energy did not require the district court to consider asset value where the parties had adduced none.