Summary

E. Norman Veasey Nixon v. Blackwell — Opinion of the Court

I find it inherently unfair for defendants to be purchasing key man life insurance in order to provide liquidity for themselves while providing no method by which plaintiffs may liquidate their stock at fair value. By this ruling, I am not suggesting that there is some generalized duty to purchase illiquid stock at any particular price. However, the needs of all stockholders must be considered and addressed when decisions are made to provide some form of liquidity. Both the ESOP and the key man insurance provide some measure of liquidity, but only for a select group of stockholders.
Source: Wikisource

E. Norman Veasey Nixon v. Blackwell — Opinion of the Court

The case at bar points up the basic dilemma of minority stockholders in receiving fair value for their stock as to which there is no market and no market valuation. It is not difficult to be sympathetic, in the abstract, to a stockholder who finds himself or herself in that position. A stockholder who bargains for stock in a closely-held corporation and who pays for those shares (unlike the plaintiffs in this case who acquired their stock through gift) can [p1380] make a business judgment whether to buy into such a minority position, and if so on what terms.
Source: Wikisource

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature