Opinion ID: 589636
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Comptroller's Authority to Appraise

Text: 28 Plaintiffs also challenge the authority of the Comptroller to conduct an appraisal prior to completion of a committee appraisal pursuant to § 215(c). They assert that resort to the Comptroller, if at all, must come at the behest of dissenters who are dissatisfied with a committee appraisal. 29 We conclude that the district court correctly rejected this challenge. As the court noted: 30 The plain language of section (d) provides that the Comptroller shall perform an appraisal upon the request of 'any interested party,' 'for any reason.' ... The statute, by its terms, does not require committee appraisal. This court declines to require an appraisal under section (c) when the statute itself has not done so. 31 III R. (Pleadings) Doc. 118, at 8. 32 The court expressly found that defendants had not purposefully delayed in appointing an appraiser to the committee. See Tr. July 28, 1986, at 112. However, even accepting plaintiffs' allegations of defendants' bad faith as true, Congress has declared that the Comptroller shall appraise the dissenting stock if the committee fails to appraise it for any reason--indicating that a party's bad faith is irrelevant. The statutory language reveals that Congress limited resort to committee appraisals to ninety days from the date of consummation of the consolidation. § 215(d). Upon the failure to obtain a committee appraisal within this time frame, any interested party [can] cause an appraisal to be made by the Comptroller. Id. Plaintiffs' unsupported assertion that the Comptroller routinely undervalues stock does not permit us to deny the Comptroller the authority to appraise when the terms of § 215(d) are met. Plaintiffs do not dispute that the time period specified in § 215(d) had elapsed without a committee appraisal and that the defendants are interested part[ies] who have made a written request for an appraisal. The statute requires no more.