Altrust Fin. Servs., Inc. v. Hughes
Decision Date | 29 July 2011 |
Docket Number | and 1091759.,1091620,1091610 |
Citation | 76 So.3d 228 |
Parties | ALTRUST FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC., et al. v. James R. ADAMS et al.Dixon Hughes, PLLC v. James R. Adams et al.James R. Adams et al. v. Altrust Financial Services, Inc., et al. |
Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Gerald P. Gillespy, Howard P. Walthall, Jr. (withdrew 01/26/2011), and Ellen T. Mathews of Burr & Forman LLP, Birmingham; S. Wayne Fuller and Matthew K. Carter of Fuller & Willingham, LLC, Cullman; and Finis St. John of St. John & St. John, LLC, Cullman, for appellants/cross-appellees Altrust Financial Services, Inc., Peoples Bank of Alabama, J. Robin Cummings, Whit Drake, N. Jasper Estes, Cecil A. Walker, Terry N. Walker, Timothy D. Walker, and Brian C. Witcher.
Katharine A. Weber and James L. Goyer of Maynard Cooper & Gale, PC, Birmingham; and Frederick K. Sharpless of Sharpless & Stavola, P.A., Greensboro, North Carolina, for Dixon Hughes, PLLC.
Andrew P. Campbell and Jason R. Smith of Leitman, Siegel, Payne & Campbell, P.C., Birmingham, for appellees/cross-appellants James R. Adams, Stanley Dye, and Ed Holcombe.BOLIN, Justice.
James R. Adams, Stanley Dye, and Ed Holcombe (collectively referred to as “the plaintiffs”), individual shareholders in Altrust Financial Services, Inc. (“Altrust”), sued Altrust; Peoples Bank of Alabama (“the Bank”); J. Robin Cummings, Whit Drake, N. Jasper Estes, Cecil Alan Walker, Terry Neal Walker, Timothy Dudley Walker, and Brian C. Witcher (“the individual defendants”) 1 (Altrust, the Bank, and the individual defendants will be referred to collectively as “the Altrust defendants”); and Dixon Hughes, PLLC, Altrust's and the Bank's public-accounting firm, on December 4, 2009, asserting a claim against all defendants for violating the Alabama Securities Act, § 8–6–1 et seq., Ala.Code 1975 (count I); a professional-negligence claim against Dixon Hughes (count II); and a negligence claim against the Altrust defendants (count III).2
On January 7, 2010, the Altrust defendants moved the trial court pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), Ala. R. Civ. P., to dismiss the claims asserted against them by the plaintiffs. On January 8, 2010, the plaintiffs amended their complaint to add 10 additional plaintiffs. The Altrust defendants then moved the trial court pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) to dismiss the plaintiffs' first amended complaint. On January 25, 2010, Dixon Hughes moved the trial court pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) to dismiss the claims asserted against it.
On February 12, 2010, the plaintiffs amended their complaint a second time to add two additional plaintiffs and to assert additional claims of aiding and abetting a fraud against two of the individual defendants and conspiracy against the Altrust defendants. All the defendants moved pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) to dismiss the plaintiffs' second amended complaint.
On March 9, 2010, the plaintiffs amended their complaint a third time, restating the prior complaint and adding allegations of fraudulent suppression in count III as to the Altrust defendants. On March 23, 2010, all defendants moved the trial court pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) to dismiss the claims asserted against them in the plaintiffs' third amended complaint. On April 6, 2010, the trial court entered an order denying the motions to dismiss the plaintiffs' claims asserted in the third amended complaint.
On April 21, 2010, the Altrust defendants moved the trial court to set aside its April 6, 2010, order denying their motions to dismiss and moved the trial court to set a hearing on the motions to dismiss the plaintiffs' third amended complaint. In the alternative, the Altrust defendants sought a permissive appeal pursuant to Rule 5, Ala. R.App. P. On April 23, 2010, Dixon Hughes joined the motion to set aside or, in the alternative, for a permissive appeal pursuant to Rule 5, Ala. R.App. P. The trial court granted the motions to set aside and set a hearing on the motions to dismiss the plaintiffs' third amended complaint. On July 30, 2010, the plaintiffs filed their consolidated response in opposition to the motions to dismiss the third amended complaint.
Following the hearing, the trial court, on August 10, 2010, entered an order dismissing the claims alleging securities fraud, aiding and abetting, and conspiracy. The trial court denied the motions to dismiss as to the professional-negligence claim against Dixon Hughes and the negligence claims against the Altrust defendants. The trial court certified the judgment as final pursuant to Rule 54(b), Ala. R. Civ. P. The plaintiffs appeal the dismissal of their claim alleging securities fraud (case no. 1091759). 3 The Altrust defendants appeal by permission pursuant to Rule 5, Ala. R.App. P., the denial of their Rule 12(b)(6) motion seeking a dismissal of the negligence claim asserted against them (case no. 1091610). Dixon Hughes appeals by permission pursuant to Rule 5, Ala. R.App. P., the denial of its Rule 12(b)(6) motion seeking a dismissal of the professional-negligence claim asserted against it (case no. 1091620). We have consolidated these three appeals for the purpose of writing one opinion.
Facts as Alleged in the Third Amended Complaint
Altrust is a holding company that fully owns, controls, and directs the operations of the Bank. Altrust and the Bank share common officers and directors and issue consolidated financial statements. Dixon Hughes is a public-accounting firm that completed audits of and prepared financial reports for Altrust and the Bank in 2005 and 2006.
In January 2008, Altrust notified its shareholders of a meeting of the shareholders to be held on February 12, 2008, in order to vote on an agreement and plan of reorganization of the company. Altrust sought to reorganize the company by changing its status from a publicly held company to a privately held company. The change in status from a publicly held company to a privately held company was to be accomplished by reducing the number of shareholders to below 300, which would free the company of certain reporting obligations imposed by the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and would also allow the company to elect Subchapter S status for taxation purposes. Altrust included with its letter a proxy statement, as required by the Securities and Exchange Commission (“the SEC”) to ensure full disclosure to the shareholders of the proposed transaction. Before Altrust's January 2008 letter and proxy statement to the shareholders, the SEC had issued a letter to Altrust commenting on Altrust's preliminary draft of the proxy statement and urging it to be forthcoming with the shareholders. The SEC letter stated:
The proxy statement provided to the shareholders by Altrust set forth the plan and purpose of the proposed reorganization:
“Reorganization
“Purpose of the Reorganization Plan
As part of the reorganization, Altrust contemplated a mandatory repurchase of stock from some shareholders. The proxy statement provided that Altrust intended to pay $17.25 per share to any shareholder not eligible to be an S-corporation shareholder, any holder of 6,400 or fewer shares, or any shareholder who elected not to remain a shareholder of Altrust. Those shareholders who did not elect to sell their shares of Altrust stock would remain shareholders of Altrust. The proxy statement also provided that if the shareholder elections required Altrust to purchase more than 950,000 shares of stock at $17.25 per share, then the reorganization plan would not be completed.
The proxy statement also included references to Altrust's financial reports for the years ending December 31, 2005, and December 31, 2006. These financial statements were audited by Dixon Hughes, who reported that the financial statements were “free from material misstatements.”...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Worthington Fed. Bank v. Everest Nat'l Ins. Co.
...wrongdoing visited injuries upon the Companies, rather than upon individual plaintiffs directly. See generally Altrust Fin. Serv., Inc. v. Adams, 76 So.3d 228, 241–42 (Ala.2011) (discussing the difference between direct and derivative claims made by shareholders).In addition, many of the al......
-
Trondheim Capital Partners, LP v. Life Ins. Co. of Ala.
...if a claim is in substance derivative, a shareholder does not have standing to assert that claim directly. Altrust Fin. Servs., Inc. v. Adams , 76 So. 3d 228, 241–42 (Ala. 2011) (citing Gilliland v. USCO Power Equip. Corp. , 631 So. 2d 938, 940 (Ala. 1994) ). More recently, however, the Cou......
-
Halbert v. Credit Suisse AG
...of the corresponding sections of Alabama statutory law inasmuch as the sections are virtually identical.See Altrust Fin. Servs., Inc. v. Adams , 76 So. 3d 228, 236 (Ala. 2011) (quoting Buffo v. State , 415 So. 2d 1158, 1161-62 (Ala. 1982) ). Moreover, in applying Section 8-6-19(a)(2), the A......
-
Hale v. 4tdd.Com, Inc. (Ex parte 4tdd.om, Inc.)
...Martin, and MACC cite this Court's decisions in James v. James, 768 So. 2d 356 (Ala. 2000) ; Stallworth, supra ; Altrust Fin. Servs., Inc. v. Adams, 76 So. 3d 228 (Ala. 2011) ; and Pegram, supra.In James, a minority shareholder alleged individual claims of fraudulent suppression and oppress......