He conceded the delay was off by a year. The payout date still didn't budge
An Alberta judge refused to move a valuation date in a shareholder buyout, even after admitting he misstated a key delay by a year.
The Court of King's Bench of Alberta released the decision on July 13, 2026. It resolves a set of correction requests in a long-running fight between a founding shareholder's holding companies and the other owners of the Dynasty group of companies.
The underlying claim is an oppression action. The plaintiffs, holding companies tied to a co-founder and former chief financial officer of the Dynasty group, alleged the other shareholders oppressed them in connection with those firms. Courts have already found oppression at earlier stages, and the parties have agreed the matter will end in what the court described as a corporate divorce - the remaining owners buying out the founder's side. What is left is setting the value.
That is where the numbers get large. For Dynasty Power, an energy trading business, the court noted shareholders' equity of about $17 million at the end of 2017 had grown to about $376 million by the end of 2024, with an additional $158 million paid out to shareholders over that span. Because the firm funds its trading with retained capital, the later the valuation date, the larger the payout to the departing side.
The court had earlier set December 31, 2021, as the valuation date for Dynasty Power. The plaintiffs asked to move it to December 31, 2022, pointing to an arithmetic slip: the judge had described a litigation delay as "about seven and a half years" when the two dates were closer to six and a half years apart.
The court rejected the request in the July 13 decision. The judge wrote that the date was a discretionary call weighing many factors, not a math calculation, and that the misstatement had no effect on the outcome. He noted the true midpoint between the two dates fell in April 2022, closer to the date he had chosen than to the one the plaintiffs wanted.
The court did change one thing that matters to valuation professionals. It had previously limited the parties' experts to estimate valuation reports, a mid-level standard set by the Canadian Institute of Chartered Business Valuators. On reflection, citing the complexity and value of the businesses, the court lifted that cap and now allows reports up to the most rigorous comprehensive standard.
Other issues, including claims for punitive damages, disgorgement, interest and the tax treatment of the buyout, were left for a final hearing. The parties have appealed and cross-appealed an earlier ruling in the case.
For advisers guiding private-company shareholders, the decision is a reminder that in an oppression buyout, the valuation date can move the number more than the merits - and that courts treat that date as a matter of discretion, not arithmetic.
