In Henke v. Trilithic, download file, the Chancery Court, based on a Motion for Reargument and Reconsideration, revised certain aspects of its October 2005 opinion in which the court determined an appraisal value for the shares of Trilithic. That prior appraisal decision was summarized here.
The petitioner claimed on reargument that the court misapprehended the nature and value of certain assets and that the court overstated certain debt of Trilithic. The court granted in part and denied in part the Motion for Reargument. The court reviewed Rule 59 and the caselaw regarding the standard for Motions for Reargument. The court noted that it would not consider arguments raised for the first time on a Motion for Reargument. The court also emphasized that in an appraisal action it has broad discretion to determine fair value, and, as it did in this case, it rejected the expert appraisals of both parties. The court found that because it did not consider the receivables or the loan in its DCF analysis of the fair value of shares, that it would add that proportionate amount to its determination of the fair value