Photo of Steve Hecht

Steve Hecht is a go-to trial lawyer for hedge funds, institutional investors, family offices, university endowments, venture funds and other investors interested in utilizing the legal process to create value for their own investors. Whether by activist litigation, fiduciary duty claims, or appraisal and other valuation strategies, Steve has extensive experience across the gamut of options for shareholders.  He regularly tries cases in Delaware Chancery Court and around the country for clients seeking outsized returns. Steve is a partner of Rolnick Kramer Sadighi LLP.

As reported here in Bloomberg, after launching a record-size $4 billion SPAC last summer, Bill Ackman’s Pershing Square Tontine Holdings is unwinding and returning its invested funds back to shareholders.

In June, Pershing Square announced it was buying a 10% stake in Universal Music Group, surprising investors who had been expecting a classic SPAC

Will 2021 be the year the cannabis industry makes a comeback?

A data-rich thought piece by New Cannabis Ventures makes an interesting case for using a sum-of-the-parts analysis in valuing cannabis companies with diverse operating segments, as that helps filter out any boosted value that might be otherwise be included by a simple EBITDA analysis that inflates the overall valuation by including non-cannabis operating segments. The

Image result for entire fairness standard

This newest piece from Law.com [$$] analyzes the most recent appraisal decision from the Delaware Chancery Court, Regal Entertainment Group, in which the court awarded stockholders a 2.6% premium to merger price.  The valuation determination followed from the court’s pegging Regal’s fair value to merger price less synergies, while adding back the increase in

This recent piece from Forbes provides an interesting look into how Michael Dell scored a huge windfall by opportunistically taking Dell private while the stock was undervalued.  Although the Delaware trial court had acknowledged a valuation much higher than the take-private price, the Supreme Court reversed mainly on policy grounds, on the rationale that public