top of page

From Merger to Courtroom: Unpacking the Ramcell, Inc. v. Alltel Valuation Dispute

Updated: Jan 11

In a landmark decision that hones the focus on the valuation of shares in corporate merger disputes, the Court of Chancery issued an illuminating ruling in Ramcell, Inc. v. Alltel Corp., C.A. No. 2019-0601-PAF (Del. Ch. July 1, 2022). The lawsuit involved a 2019 short-form merger between Alltel Corporation (Alltel) and Jackson Cellular Telephone Co. (Jackson), resulting in the exchange of Jackson’s stock for a consideration of US$2,963 per share. Ramcell, Inc. (Ramcell), a holder of approximately 155 shares of Jackson stock, did not agree with this valuation and hence, exercised its statutory appraisal rights.

At the heart of the dispute was the valuation of Jackson's shares at the time of the merger. Ramcell’s expert pegged the value as high as US$36,016 per share while Alltel’s expert appraised the shares as low as US$5,690.92 per share. This wide chasm in valuation models was the crux of the disagreement. In an unusual yet insightful move, the Court decided to average the models of both experts, adopting a final valuation of US$11,464.57 per share.

The essence of this judgment goes beyond the matter of a specific corporate merger. It underscores the inherent complexities of corporate valuations, the role of expert testimony, and the judicial system’s commitment to ensuring that shareholders receive fair value for their stakes in such transactions.

A brief backdrop to the case reveals the intricacies involved. Jackson, at the heart of the dispute, provided wireless communications products and services in the FCC-designated Jackson Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA). In 2009, Verizon Communications, Inc. (Verizon) acquired Jackson’s majority owner, Alltel, and subsequently integrated Jackson’s operations with its own.

In April 2019, Alltel, holding 90% of Jackson's common stock, effected a short-form merger where Jackson's stockholders received US$2,963 per share. Ramcell, holding less than a 1% interest in Jackson, disagreed with this valuation and consequently initiated an appraisal rights action, asserting a significantly higher value for its 155.4309 shares of Jackson’s stock.

The courtroom battle involved expert testimonies from both sides, both of whom concurred on using a discounted cash flow (DCF) model for determining Jackson's value as of April 4, 2019. The divergence, however, lay in their assumptions and estimations, leading to "vastly different valuations." In a departure from the typical "either-or" approach where in the court selects between the two experts' valuation models, in this instance, the court elected to combine the approaches, recognizing the merits and deficiencies of each model. This decision spotlights the court's nuanced understanding of the components of a Discounted Cash Flow (DCF) model and their impact on the final valuation.

The DCF model is anchored in three pillars: (1) Future Cash Flow Estimates, (2) the Discount Rate, and (3) Terminal Value. Each of these components was subjected to meticulous scrutiny by the court as it sought to balance the divergent expert opinions.

Financial Projections: With regards to Future Cash Flow Estimates, the court adopted a pragmatic approach. Neither Alltel’s nor Ramcell’s projections were accepted outright; the court concluded that each party's reasoning had its strengths and weaknesses. Thus, rather than opting for one over the other, the court took the innovative step of averaging the two sets of projections. It assigned a 70% weight to Alltel’s estimates, grounded in concrete historical financial data, and a 30% weight to Ramcell’s projections, which were primarily based on projected subscriber numbers. This approach reflected a balanced consideration of both the real-world financial data and forward-looking projections, thereby grounding the valuation in empirical evidence while allowing room for reasonable future predictions.

Discount Rate: In considering the discount rate, which essentially is the rate of return required by an investor to invest in a particular business or project, the court once again stepped away from the traditional either-or approach. Ramcell's expert had rather simplistically assumed Jackson’s rate to be the same as Verizon’s 6.8%. On the other hand, Alltel’s expert proposed a seemingly inflated rate of 12.9%, a figure that the court found suspect. In response, the court opted for a judicious blended rate of 7.847%, crafted by combining the rates proposed by both experts. This approach underscored the court's commitment to fairness and its determination to steer clear of arbitrary or unsupported figures.

Terminal Value: Regarding the terminal value, which captures a company's expected future cash flow beyond the explicit forecast horizon, the court favored Ramcell's expert's approach. The expert had offered averages of industry growth forecasts, cleverly incorporating discounts for Jackson MSA-specific characteristics. However, the court identified some inaccuracies in the data used by Ramcell’s expert and consequently, adjusted the growth rate downward slightly to 2.2%. This demonstrated the court’s keen eye for detail and commitment to accuracy, ensuring that each element of the valuation was grounded in a solid evidentiary base.

By judiciously piecing together these components and giving due consideration to the strengths and weaknesses of both experts' testimonies, the court arrived at a final weighted average of US$11,464.57 per share. This led to a total judgment of US$1,781,948.74 - a figure significantly higher than the merger price initially proposed. Due to the court’s final price exceeding the merger price, the Court followed the standard procedure and ordered Alltel to bear the costs and fees.

The Ramcell, Inc. v. Alltel Corp. decision offers profound insights for the business world, particularly in relation to valuation and M&A. It reemphasizes the importance of robust, detailed, and defensible valuation models and illustrates the potential for divergent models to give rise to litigation. The case also showcases the critical role that expert testimony plays in these disputes. It highlights the importance of rigorous, well-founded valuation analysis and assumptions and the need for meticulous preparation and due diligence. Rigorous, well-substantiated valuation models are not just crucial for the success of these transactions, they are also likely to be decisive in the event of a dispute. As the Ramcell, Inc. v. Alltel Corp. case demonstrates, the right expert testimony, supported by a solid, well-reasoned valuation model, can make the difference between a win or loss in court.

Ramcell stands for the notion that experts, no matter how credible and experienced, must remember that courts will not blindly accept their models, but will rigorously scrutinize them, consider their strengths and weaknesses, and ultimately, utilize them as guides, not gospel.

How can Eton help?

Don't let your business fall victim to the less than complete and transparent valuation analysis. Trust Eton Venture Services to guide you through an appropriate and transparent valuation process utilizing multiple methods to arrive at a defensible valuation. Our team of dedicated professionals is committed to upholding the highest standards of integrity, objectivity, and independence. With our extensive experience and expertise in valuation methodologies, we can help you navigate complex transactions and comply with fiduciary duties.

Partner with Eton Venture Services today and safeguard your business from costly legal battles and reputational damage. Contact us now to learn more about our valuation services and how we can help your business stay ahead of potential challenges. Together, we can pave the way for a successful and transparent valuation experience. Contact Eton today.


Eton's unparalleled service and expertise can deliver the valuation precision you or your business need

bottom of page