Friedman v. Beway Realty Corp. Case Brief
Complete case briefs with LSD+
Every LSD.Law brief pairs a full IRAC analysis with opinion summaries at three levels of depth, written by a team of Harvard Law and MIT graduates - a quick synopsis when you are pressed for time, the complete reasoning when you need to go deep.
Adaptive Case Views
Toggle between Flash, Standard, and Expanded. Get what you need, when you need it.
Exam-Ready IRAC Format
We deliver the precise structure professors look for in exam answers.
Complex Cases, Clarified
We break down dense legal reasoning into something digestible, helping you grasp core concepts.
Case Brief Summary & Legal Analysis
tl;dr: Minority shareholders sought fair value for shares after a corporate asset transfer. The court rejected a minority discount but allowed a marketability discount, remanding for recalculation of the latter.
Legal Significance: Establishes that in New York, fair value determinations for dissenting shareholders’ stock in close corporations under Business Corporation Law § 623 preclude minority discounts but permit marketability discounts.
Case Facts & Court Holding
Key Facts & Case Background
Petitioners, minority stockholders in nine family-owned close corporations whose sole assets were income-producing real estate, dissented from a decision to transfer all corporate property to a new partnership. They exercised their appraisal rights under Business Corporation Law § 623 to receive the ‘fair value’ of their shares. The corporations’ expert proposed valuing the shares by first determining their hypothetical public trading price (applying a 9.8% discount from net asset value based on REITs) and then applying a further discount for lack of marketability (30.4% plus an additional 14.6% for transfer restrictions). The trial court rejected the initial 9.8% discount as an impermissible minority discount and rejected the 14.6% transfer restriction discount. It accepted a marketability discount but reduced the expert’s 30.4% figure to 21%, believing the 30.4% also improperly included a minority component. The Appellate Division affirmed. The corporations appealed, arguing for the inclusion of a minority discount.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: In determining the ‘fair value’ of dissenting minority shareholders’ stock in a close corporation pursuant to Business Corporation Law § 623, must a discount for minority status be applied, and how should a discount for lack of marketability be assessed?
Reversed and remitted. The court held that a minority discount is not Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariat
IRAC Legal Analysis
About IRAC analysis
IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the structure professors expect in exam answers. Each LSD.Law brief states the issue, the governing rule with citations, the court's application of that rule, and the conclusion - the same reasoning pattern you will use on exams and in practice.
Legal Issue
In determining the ‘fair value’ of dissenting minority shareholders’ stock in a close corporation pursuant to Business Corporation Law § 623, must a discount for minority status be applied, and how should a discount for lack of marketability be assessed?
Conclusion
This case is a leading New York authority establishing that fair value Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamc
Legal Rule
Under Business Corporation Law § 623, the 'fair value' of a dissenter's Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui
Legal Analysis
The Court of Appeals affirmed the rejection of a minority discount, emphasizing Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate vel
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- In statutory appraisals (BCL § 623), “fair value” for dissenting minority