Abstract
The Utah Supreme Court's decision in Oakridge Energy, Inc. v. Clifton represents a case of first impression under Utah's appraisal remedy. The appraisal remedy grants minority shareholders the right to dissent from unfair transactions mandated by the majority. However, Oakridge Energy sets a difficult precedent for minority shareholders to overcome in order to receive this protection. The Utah Supreme Court ignores modem appraisal remedy precedents, fails to recognize the unique structures of various corporations, and implicitly limits Utah's appraisal remedy to an outdated Delaware standard (a standard overruled in Delaware in 1983). Ultimately, the Oakridge Energy decision fails to recognize the present purpose possibly available under an appraisal remedy, and thereby restricts minority shareholders from receiving the complete protection of the appraisal remedy. The following analogy illustrates the dilemma and circumstances minority shareholders in Utah seeking an appraisal remedy are faced with after the Oakridge Energy decision.
Recommended Citation
Larsen, Randall
(1999)
""Fair" Value-The Utah Supreme Court Appraises Fair Value for Minority Shareholders Under the Appraisal Remedy: Oakridge Energy, Inc. v. Clifton,"
Utah Law Review: Vol. 1999:
No.
3, Article 9.
Available at:
https://dc.law.utah.edu/ulr/vol1999/iss3/9