Henke v. Trilithic, Inc. , download file. This is an appraisal action under Section 262 of the DGCL. The court found that neither party carried its burden of satisfying the court by a preponderance of the evidence that its expert presented the appropriate valuation. Therefore, the court formulated its own valuation of the shares at issue, although it used the discounted cash flow method, in part, based on one of the experts. The court next determined the appropriate interest to be applied. The case had been filed in 1993 and the court placed most of the blame for the “torpor” in the length of the proceedings on the lack of vigorous prosecution by the plaintiff, but the defendant was not without fault in light of no efforts by the defendant to press for a quicker trial date. Those factors were included in the analysis of the court in determining the prudent investor rate of 6.14% as the rate of pre-judgment interest. Neither party provided evidence of the appropriate frequency of compounding and therefore the court “defaulted” to applying monthly compounding of interest.