Bache & Co., Inc. v. International Controls Corp.

Decision Date04 February 1972
Docket NumberNo. 68 Civ. 4133.,68 Civ. 4133.
Citation339 F. Supp. 341
PartiesBACHE & CO., INCORPORATED, Plaintiff, v. INTERNATIONAL CONTROLS CORPORATION, Defendant.
CourtU.S. District Court — Southern District of New York

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Sullivan & Cromwell, New York City, for plaintiff; Howard T. Milman, Joel M. Miller, New York City, of counsel.

Cahill, Gordon, Sonnett, Reindel & Ohl, New York City, for defendant; David R. Hyde, New York City, of counsel.

OPINION, FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW ON QUESTION OF DAMAGES.

LEVET, District Judge.

This is an action brought by plaintiff Bache & Co., Incorporated ("Bache") against defendant International Controls Corporation ("ICC") for damages resulting from a breach of a tender offer to purchase securities (common stock and debentures convertible into common stock) of Electronic Specialties Co. ("ELS").

The issue of liability has already been tried to the court without a jury. As a result of that trial, this court granted plaintiff judgment that defendant is liable to plaintiff for 30,649 shares of common stock and 42 $1,000 debentures of ELS. The determination as to damages follows.

Two main questions are presented. First, whether New York or New Jersey law governs. Second, what is the amount of damages under that law.

After hearing the testimony of the parties, examining the exhibits and the Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law submitted by counsel, this court makes the following Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law.

FINDINGS OF FACT
I. QUESTION OF NEW YORK OR NEW JERSEY LAW

1. Plaintiff is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the state of Delaware, engaged in a general securities business, a member of the New York Stock Exchange and other national securities exchanges and has its principal office at 100 Gold Street, New York, New York.

2. Defendant is a corporation of the State of Florida having its principal place of business at 88 Clinton Road, Fairfield, New Jersey.

3. The significant and relevant contacts in the tender offer took place in New York as hereinafter appears:

(A) The tender offer which defendant ICC made in the fall of 1968 for the securities of ELS was received by plaintiff Bache by mail in New York. (Pl. Ex. 1.)

(B) Bache accepted this tender offer in New York by delivering the letters of transmittal to Chemical Bank in New York which thus created binding contracts between August 30 and September 12, 1968. (See opinion on liability, Bache & Co., Inc. v. International Controls Corp., 324 F.Supp. 998, 1005 (1971).)

(C) Subsequently, Bache was requested to deliver the securities to Chemical Bank in New York and payment was to be received in New York. Bache did this by delivering the certificates representing the tendered securities to Chemical Bank, the forwarding agent named in the letter of transmittal, in New York on October 2, 1968. (Tr. 71-73, 129-130; Pl.Ex. 17, Pl.Ex. 22, Pl.Ex. 23.)

(D) The dealer-manager appointed by ICC to manage the tender office (Orvis Brothers), the broker hired by ICC to assist in solicitation (D. F. King & Co.), and the forwarding agent (Chemical Bank) were all located in New York. (Pl.Ex. 1.)

(E) ICC's depositary banks were located in California and New Jersey, but ICC specifically provided a forwarding agent (Chemical Bank) in New York for Bache to deal with. (Tr. 103-106; Pl.Ex. 1.) Bache had no direct dealings with either of the out-of-state banks.

Hence, I find that the significant contacts took place in New York.

II. QUESTION OF DAMAGES

The number of ELS securities involved in this case is not at issue here as both parties are in agreement. (See Pl.Ex. C, "Computation of Damages Under the Theory Asserted by Plaintiff," November 8, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as Pl.Ex. C, Nov. 8, 1971).) It is rather the theory of damages that divides the parties. I find it necessary, nevertheless, to make findings as to the specific number of shares and debentures held or resold by Bache for itself or for its customers so as to facilitate the application of the theories of law (see Discussion, infra).

4. Subsequent to defendant's tender offer, I find that an exchange agreement was consummated whereby each share of common stock of ELS was exchanged for .7 shares of defendant's common stock and 1.5 of its class A warrants. There has been no exchange or conversion of the ELS debentures. (Stipulation of Facts with Respect to Damages, October 7, 1971, at 1.)

5. This court has already decided that Bache is the real party in interest and is the proper party to bring this action on behalf of its customers. (See opinion on liability, Bache & Co., Inc. v. International Controls Corp., 324 F. Supp. 998, 1005 (1971).)

6. On the date of the breach of the tender offer, October 2, 1968, the New York Stock Exchange was closed. On October 3, 1968 the closing market price on the New York Stock Exchange for the ELS common stock was $30.50 and for the ELS convertible debentures was $1,050. (Stipulation of Facts with Respect to Damages, October 7, 1971, Ex. F.)

7. Defendant is liable to plaintiff for 30,649 shares of ELS common stock, 21,301 of which are being held for Bache's customers and 9,348 of which for Bache itself. (Pl.Ex. C, Nov. 8, 1971, at 1.)

8. Defendant is also liable to plaintiff for 42 $1,000 ELS convertible debentures all of which are being held for Bache's customers. (Pl.Ex. C, Nov. 8, 1971, at 2.)

9. Of the 21,301 shares held for Bache's customers, 4,732 are unsold, 15,869 have been resold, 403 have been partially resold and claims for 297 have been withdrawn because sufficient information is not available to determine damages. (Pl.Ex. C, Nov. 8, 1971, at 1.)

10. Of the 9,348 shares being held for Bache, 2,148 are unsold, 7,100 have been resold, and claims for 100 have been withdrawn because sufficient information is not available to determine damages. (Pl.Ex. C, Nov. 8, 1971, at 2.)

11. In all, claims for 397 shares have been withdrawn because of insufficient information to determine damages. Consequently, defendant is liable for only 30,252 shares.

12. Of the 42 $1,000 debentures being held for Bache's customers, 28 are unsold and 14 have been resold. (Pl. Ex. C, Nov. 8, 1971, at 2.)

13. In ICC's tender offer ICC agreed to pay "to any securities dealer whose name appears on the letter of transmittal a commission of $.70 per share Common ... on all Common stock ... solicitated by such dealer and purchased by the Company." (Pl.Ex. 1; see opinion on liability, Bache & Co., Inc. v. International Controls Corp., 324 F.Supp. 998, 999 (1971).)

In ICC's tender offer ICC also agreed to pay "to any securities dealer whose name appears on the letter of transmittal a commission of $22.19 per $1,000 debenture on all ... convertible debentures solicited by such dealer and purchased by the Company." (Pl.Ex. 1; see opinion on liability, Bache & Co., Inc. v. International Controls Corp., 324 F.Supp. 998, 999 (1971).)

Hence, I find that plaintiff is entitled to recover the full amount of the commissions as specified in the tender offer.

14. I find that plaintiff is entitled to interest at the legal rate on the amount of damages awarded.

15. $236.30 has been received by plaintiff as a result of exchanges in the common stock and will be deducted from plaintiff's final award. (Pl.Ex. C, Nov. 8, 1971, at 2.)

16. I find that plaintiff is entitled to costs as taxed.

17. The ELS securities presently being held by Bache for itself and for its customers and the dates on which the securities were resold are listed in Exhibits A and B of the Stipulation of Facts with Respect to Damages of October 7, 1971. Those exhibits will be filed with this opinion.

I find that plaintiff is entitled to recover the following amount of damages:

                         (A) Unsold Securities (see Discussion, III(A), infra)
                             =================
                             (1) 4,732 shares
                                 $39 (tender price) × 4,732                               = $184,548.00
                             (2) 2,148 shares
                                 $39 (tender price) × 2,148 shares                        = $ 83,772.00
                             (3) 28 $1,000 debentures
                                 $1,236 (tender price) × 28                               = $ 34,608.00
                         (B) Resold Securities (see Discussion, III(B), infra)
                             =================
                             (1) 15,869 shares
                                 (a) 1,283 shares: $39 (tender price) minus
                                     resale price for each share resold by November
                                     1, 1968                                              = $ 10,119.371
                                 (b) 14,586 shares: $39 (tender price) minus
                                     $30.50 (market price at time and place of
                                     tender) for each share resold after November
                                     1, 1968: 14,586 × $8.50                              = $123,981.00
                             (2) 7,100 shares
                                 $39 (tender price) minus $30.50 (market
                                     price at time and place of tender) for
                                     each share: 7,100 × $8.50                            = $ 60,350.00
                             (3) 14 $1,000 debentures
                                 (a) 1 $1,000 debenture: $1,236 (tender
                                     price) minus resale price for the debenture
                                     resold by November 1, 1968
                                     $1,236 minus $1,062.50                               = $    173.50
                                 (b) 13 $1,000 debentures: $1,236 (tender
                                     price) minus $1,050 (market price at
                                     time and place of tender) for each debenture
                                     resold after November 1, 1968
                                     $186 × 13                                            = $  2,418.00
                
                
                         (C) Partially Resold Shares (see Discussion, III(B),
                             =======================
                             infra)
                             (1) 403 shares:
                           Three Bache customers converted their 403 ELS shares into 282
                         ICC common stock and 604 ICC class
...

To continue reading

Request your trial
32 cases
  • American Nat. Bank and Trust Co. of Chicago v. Weyerhaeuser Co.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit
    • 26 Octubre 1982
    ...and resold, we must look to ILL.REV.STAT. ch. 26, Sec. 2-706 (1981) (pertaining to the sale of goods). See Bache & Co. v. International Controls Corp., 339 F.Supp. 341, 349 (S.D.N.Y.), aff'd on opinion below, 469 F.2d 696 (2d Cir. 1974). ILL.REV.STAT. ch. 26, Sec. 2-706(1) (1981), provides ......
  • Am. Elec. Power Co., Inc. v. Westinghouse Elec. Corp.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York
    • 19 Julio 1976
    ...relationship and contacts with the Mitchell Unit I contract and with the parties to it. See, e. g., Bache & Co., Inc. v. International Controls Corp., 339 F.Supp. 341, 347 (S.D.N.Y.) aff'd, 469 F.2d 696 (2d Cir. 1972); Auten v. Auten, 308 N.Y. 155, 124 N.E.2d 99 (1954). See also UCC § 1-105......
  • Primavera Familienstifung v. Askin
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York
    • 5 Febrero 2001
    ...of contract to purchase securities to the contract price minus resale proceeds. N.Y. U.C.C. § 2-706(1); see Bache & Co. v. Int'l Controls Corp., 339 F.Supp. 341, 349 (S.D.N.Y.), aff'd, 469 F.2d 696 (2d Cir. This leaves the 8 securities not sold by March 31, and which were later sold by DLJ ......
  • Burns v. Prudential Securities, Inc.
    • United States
    • Ohio Court of Appeals
    • 11 Julio 2006
    ...courts to be: 15, 30, or 60 days;8 12 days;9 nine days;10 24 days;11 and seven days.12 See, generally, Bache & Co., Inc. v. Internatl. Controls Corp. (S.D.N.Y.1972), 339 F.Supp. 341, 351. However, a "reasonable time" has not been limited to merely See, e.g., Hayward v. Edwards (1938), 167 M......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT