Brown v. Eastern States Corporation
Decision Date | 26 October 1949 |
Docket Number | Civ. No. 4699. |
Citation | 86 F. Supp. 887 |
Parties | BROWN v. EASTERN STATES CORPORATION et al. |
Court | U.S. District Court — District of Maryland |
Simon E. Sobeloff and Eugene Feinblatt, of Baltimore, Maryland, and David I. Shivitz, of New York City, for plaintiff.
George Cochran Doub (Marshall, Carey & Doub), of Baltimore, and Horace R. Lamb (LeBouef & Lamb), of New York City, for defendants.
This is a suit brought by the plaintiff, Arthur Brown, a citizen of New York, against Eastern States Corporation, an investment company incorporated under the laws of Maryland, and the individual defendants who are officers and members of the Board of Directors of that corporation, to enjoin all of the defendants from putting into effect a plan which was presented under date of August 30, 1949, to the preferred stockholders of that corporation, whereby they were offered common stock of the St. Regis Paper Company (of which Eastern States Corporation owned 1,000,000 shares) and cash, in exchange for outstanding shares of preferred stock of Eastern States Corporation.
The proceeding was originally begun and a preliminary injunction obtained in the Circuit Court No. 2 of Baltimore City solely on the bill of complaint and affidavits, but was then removed to this Court under 28 U.S.C.A. § 1441(b), on the ground that, as the bill of complaint alleged, questions of violation of federal laws were involved.
The following is a summary of the major features of the terms of the proposed exchange, as set forth in Eastern States' plan submitted to its preferred stockholders:
* * * * * *
Three major grounds are asserted in the bill of complaint as the basis for granting injunctive relief and for an accounting by the individual defendants for alleged waste of the Corporation's assets committed by them in connection with the plan. These grounds are first, wilful, fraudulent deception practised upon all classes of stockholders of the corporation by reason of the individual defendants' promotion and offering of the plan without the prior calling of a meeting of stockholders of any class, and without any prior vote, approval or consent of the stockholders in any form whatsoever. It is claimed that this action on the part of the individual defendants was all pursuant to a conspiracy on their part to cheat and defraud the Corporation's stockholders, and more specifically, that the plan is designed to serve the interests and purposes only of defendant R. K. Ferguson, president of the Company, and, as alleged, the chief moving spirit in the whole scheme, and of the other defendant directors acting with him. Second, it is claimed that such action on the part of the individual defendants is ultra vires; and third, that the plan as offered violates the Maryland corporation laws.
We will first consider plaintiff's second and third contentions, and will deal with them as one, since they are closely interrelated, and, in effect, as presented they raise basically the same questions.
It is true that the plan was never formally submitted to the Corporation's stockholders for their acceptance or rejection, but the stockholders on April 13, 1949, at their last meeting held prior to submission of the plan, considered and formally adopted a change in the Corporation's investment policy so as to possess more freedom of action with respect to concentration of its investments. In furtherance of this change, amendments were adopted in the Corporation's Registration Statement as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, and among these amendments is the following: Conceding that this was not the equivalent of formal action by the stockholders with respect to the precise plan here in issue, we are nevertheless satisfied that failure to present this plan to the stockholders for their...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Brown v. Eastern States Corporation, 6029.
...state court and dismissed the suit as involving no question not decided in the denial of injunctive relief. See Brown v. Eastern States Corporation et al., D.C., 86 F.Supp. 887. A motion was made by the appellee in this court to dismiss the appeal as moot and was heard along with the hearin......
-
Shimko v. Eastern States Corp.
...was filed in the Circuit Court No. 2 of Baltimore City and was removed to the United States District Court. See Brown v. Eastern States Corporation, D.C., 86 F.Supp. 887, affirmed 4 Cir., 181 F.2d 26. The District Court found against the contentions of the attacking stockholder. The Court o......