405 F.2d 215 (2nd Cir. 1967), 160, Schoenbaum v. Firstbrook

Docket Nº:160, 31408.
Citation:405 F.2d 215
Party Name:David H. SCHOENBAUM, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Bradshaw D. FIRSTBROOK, et al., Defendants, and Harold W. Manley, LouisPradal, John C. Rudolph, Donald K. Russell, Aquitaine Company of Canada, Ltd.,and Paribas Corporation of New York, Defendants-Appellees.
Case Date:November 08, 1967
Court:United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit

Page 215

405 F.2d 215 (2nd Cir. 1967)

David H. SCHOENBAUM, Plaintiff-Appellant,


Bradshaw D. FIRSTBROOK, et al., Defendants, and Harold W. Manley, LouisPradal, John C. Rudolph, Donald K. Russell, Aquitaine Company of Canada, Ltd.,and Paribas Corporation of New York, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 160, 31408.

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

November 8, 1967

Decided Dec. 30, 1968.

Page 216

[Copyrighted Material Omitted]

Page 217

Sidney B. Silverman, New York City, for appellant.

Whitney North Seymour, Jr., New York City (Simpson, Thacher & Bartlett, and John C. Diller, New York City, on the brief), for appellees Manley, Rudolph and Russell.

Michael M. Maney, New York City (Sullivan & Cromwell, and Marvin Schwartz, New York City, on the brief), for appellees Aquitaine Co. of Canada, Ltd., and Pradal.

David Hartfield, Jr., New York City (White & Case, Thomas A. Butler and Paul J. Bschorr, New York City, on the brief), for appellee Paribas Corp.

Before: LUMBARD, Chief Judge, MEDINA, Senior Circuit Judge, [*] WATERMAN, MOORE, FRIENDLY, SMITH, KAUFMAN, HAYS, ANDERSON and FEINBERG, Circuit Judges.

HAYS, Circuit Judge:

After a panel opinion in this case was issued a petition for rehearing en banc was granted. Additional briefs were submitted including an amicus brief by the Securities and Exchange Commission. On consideration by the full court the order of the district court granting summary judgment for the defendants is affirmed as to the defendant Paribas Corporation and reversed as to the other defendants.

The petition for rehearing sought reconsideration only of the issue of whether the defendants were entitled to summary judgment under Rules 12(c) and 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The court en banc has not reviewed the decision announced by Chief Judge Lumbard on the issue of jurisdiction over the subject matter and that decision stands as the holding of the court.

Factual Background of the Controversy

This is a stockholder's derivative action on behalf of Banff Oil Ltd., a Canadian corporation. The corporate defendants are Aquitaine Company of Canada, Ltd., and Paribas Corporation. The individual defendants are directors of Banff. Aquitaine is a wholly owned subsidiary of a French corporation, Societe National des Petroles d'Aquitaine, which is in turn a subsidiary of an agency of the French government. Paribas is an investment banking corporation, incorporated in Delaware. It is a wholly owned subsidiary of a French banking institution.

In February, 1964, Aquitaine acquired control of Banff through a tender offer to Banff shareholders. Aquitaine thereupon designated three of its representatives to sit on Banff's eight man board of directors.

In March, 1964, Banff and Aquitaine agreed to conduct joint explorations for oil. The exploratory operations involved in the present case began toward the end of 1964. A test well struck oil on February 6, 1965 and on March 17, 1965 the well was completed.

On December 11, 1964, Banff's board of directors voted to offer 500,000 shares of Banff treasury stock to Aquitaine, its controlling shareholder, at $1.35 a share. The closing price of Banff stock on the Toronto Stock Exchange on that day was $1.31 bid and $1.37 asked. Aquitaine claims that the sale of stock was necessary in order to finance Banff's share of the expenses of exploration

Page 218

however it appears that Banff needed only $77,500 for this purpose, whereas the proceeds of the sale amounted to $675,000. On January 5, 1965, the president of Aquitaine wrote to Banff 'on behalf of Aquitaine's members of Banff Oil Board' saying 'our Chairman and Managing Director * * * has agreed to your * * * proposal.' The shares were delivered to Aquitaine on March 16, 1965, the day before the completion of the first well.

In November 1965 Paribas negotiated a purchase of 270,000 shares of Banff stock at $7.30 a share, the then current price on the Toronto Stock Exchange.

During 1966, after public announcement of the oil discovery, Banff stock traded at prices as high at $18 a share.

The complaint alleges, in effect, that the defendants, knowing of the oil discoveries and the consequent increase in value of Banff stock, sold 770,000 shares of that stock to Aquitaine and Paribas at vastly inadequate prices as a result of a conspiracy among them to enrich Aquitaine's 'affiliates, business associates and friends' at the expense of Banff and its shareholders other than Aquitaine.

Summary Judgment

The district court's grant of summary judgment against the plaintiff was accompanied by a refusal of his request for discovery. This court has indicated that summary judgment should rarely be granted against a plaintiff in a stockholder's derivative action especially when the plaintiff has not had an opportunity to resort to discovery procedures. See, for example, Subin v. Goldsmith, 224 F.2d 753 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 350 U.S. 883, 76 S.Ct. 136, 100 L.Ed. 779 (1955); Colby v. Klune, 178 F.2d 872 (2d Cir. 1949); Fogelson v. American Woolen Co., 170 F.2d 660 (2d Cir. 1948). The plaintiff typically has in his possession only the facts which he alleges in his complaint. Having little or no familiarity with the internal affairs of the corporation, he is faced with affidavits setting forth in great detail management's version of what actions were taken and what motives led the affiants to take these actions. Since the facts in such a case are exclusively in the possession of the defendants, summary judgment should not ordinarily be granted where the facts alleged by the plaintiff provide a ground for recovery, at least not without allowing discovery in order to provide plaintiff the possibility of counteracting the effect of defendants' affidavits.

Indeed in many stockholder's derivative actions there will be issues as to the knowledge, intent and motive which will require a full trial with an opportunity to observe the demeanor of the witnesses, and to conduct cross-examination in open court. In such cases summary judgment cannot be granted even after discovery has been had. See Subin v. Goldsmith, supra, 224 F.2d at 757. See also Poller v. CBS, 368 U.S. 464, 473, 82 S.Ct. 486, 491, 7 L.Ed.2d 458 (1962) ('We believe that summary procedures should be used sparingly in complex antitrust litigation where motive and intent play leading roles, the proof is largely in the hands of the alleged conspirators, and hostile witnesses thicken the plot.'); Cross v. United States, 336 F.2d 431, 434 (2d Cir. 1964); Alvado v. General Motors Corp., 229 F.2d 408, 411-12 (2d Cir. 1955), cert. denied, 351 U.S. 983, 76 S.Ct. 1050, 100 L.Ed. 1497 (1956). (For a discussion of a number of additional cases, see Judge Frank's opinion in the Subin case.)

In the present case the plaintiff's allegations constitute a claim that Aquitaine, knowing the true value of Banff stock, used its control over Banff to acquire 500,000 shares at a vastly inadequate price. The allegations have a sufficient factual basis-- Aquitaine's control, Aquitaine's knowledge of the oil discovery, the inadequacy of the price paid for the stock-- to require at least that the plaintiff be permitted through discovery to develop the evidence to counter defendants' affidavits.

Page 219

Plaintiff's Cause of...

To continue reading