Case Company v. Borak, No. 402

CourtUnited States Supreme Court
Writing for the CourtCLARK
Citation84 S.Ct. 1555,377 U.S. 426,12 L.Ed.2d 423
PartiesJ. I. CASE COMPANY et al., Petitioners, v. Carl H. BORAK, etc
Decision Date08 June 1964
Docket NumberNo. 402

377 U.S. 426
84 S.Ct. 1555
12 L.Ed.2d 423
J. I. CASE COMPANY et al., Petitioners,

v.

Carl H. BORAK, etc.

No. 402.
Argued April 22 and 23, 1964.
Decided June 8, 1964.

Walter S. Davis and Malcolm K. Whyte, Milwaukee, Wis., for petitioners.

Page 427

Alex Elson, Arnold I. Shure, Willard J. Lassers and Aaron S. Wolff, Chicago, Ill., Bruno V. Bitker, Milwaukee, Wis., for respondents.

Philip A. Loomis, Jr., for Securities and Exchange Commission, as amicus curiae, by special leave of Court.

Mr. Justice CLARK delivered the opinion of the Court.

This is a civil action brought by respondent, a stockholder of petitioner J. I. Case Company, charging deprivation of the pre-emptive rights of respondent and other shareholders by reason by a merger between Case and the American Tractor Corporation. It is alleged that the merger was effected through the circulation of a false and misleading proxy statement by those proposing the merger. The complaint was in two counts, the first based on diversity and claiming a breach of the directors' fiduciary duty to the stockholders. The second count alleged a violation of § 14(a)1 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 with reference to the proxy solicitation material. The trial court held that as to this court it had no power to redress the alleged violations of the Act but was limited solely to the granting of declara-

Page 428

tory relief thereon under § 27 of the Act.2 The Court held Wis.Stat., 1961, § 180.405(4), which requires posting security for expenses in derivative actions, applicable to both counts, except that portion of Count 2 requesting declaratory relief. It ordered the respondent to furnish a bond in the amount of $75,000 thereunder and, upon his failure to do so, dismissed the complaint, save that part of Count 2 seeking a declaratory judgment. On interlocutory appeal the Court of Appeals reversed on both counts, holding that the District Court had the power to grant remedial relief and that the Wisconsin statute was not applicable. 317 F.2d 838. We granted certiorari. 375 U.S. 901, 84 S.Ct. 195, 11 L.Ed.2d 143. We consider only the question of whether § 27 of the Act authorizes a federal cause of action for rescission or damages to a corporate stockholder with respect to a consummated merger which was authorized pursuant to the use of a proxy statement alleged to contain false and misleading statements violative of § 14(a) of the Act. This being the sole question raised by petitioners in their petition for certiorari, we will not consider other questions subsequently presented.

Page 429

See Supreme Court Rule 40(1)(d)(2);3 Local 1976, United Brotherhood of Carpenters v. National Labor Relations Board, 357 U.S. 93, 96, 78 S.Ct. 1011, 1014, 2 L.Ed.2d 1186 (1958); Irvine v. California, 347 U.S. 128, 129—130, 74 S.Ct. 381, 382, 98 L.Ed. 561 (1954).

I.

Respondent, the owner of 2,000 shares of common stock of Case acquired prior to the merger, brought this suit based on diversity jurisdiction seeking the enjoin a proposed merger between Case and the American Tractor Corporation (ATC) on various grounds, including breach of the fiduciary duties of the Case directors, self-dealing among the management of Case and ATC and misrepresentations contained in the material circulated to obtain proxies. The injunction was denied and the merger was thereafter consummated. Subsequently successive amended complaints were filed and the case was heard on the aforesaid two-count complaint. The claims pertinent to the asserted violation of the Securities Exchange Act were predicated on diversity jurisdiction as well as on § 27 of the Act. They alleged: that petitioners, or their predecessors, solicited or permitted their names to be used in the solicitation of proxies of Case stockholders for use at a special stockholders' meeting at which the proposed merger with ATC was to be voted upon; that the proxy solicitation material so circulated was false and misleading in violation of § 14(a) of the Act and Rule 14a—9 which the Commission had promulgated thereunder;4

Page 430

that the merger was approved at the meeting by a small margin of votes and was thereafter consummated; that the merger would not have been approved but for the false and misleading statements in the proxy solicitation material; and that Case stockholders were damaged thereby. The respondent sought judgment holding the merger void and damages for himself and all other stockholders similarly situated, as well as such further relief 'as equity shall require.' The District Court ruled that the Wisconsin security for expenses statute did not apply to Count 2 since it arose under federal law. However, the court found that its jurisdiction was limited to declaratory relief in a private, as opposed to a government, suit alleging violation of § 14(a) of the Act. Since the additional equitable relief and damages prayed for by the respondent would, therefore, be available only under state law, it ruled those claims subject to the security for expenses statute. After setting the amount of security at $75 000 and upon the representation of counsel that the security would not be posted, the court dismissed the complaint, save that portion of Count 2 seeking a declaration that the proxy solicitation material was false and misleading and that the proxies and, hence, the merger were void.

II.

It appears clear that private parties have a right under § 27 to bring suit for violation of § 14(a) of the

Page 431

Act. Indeed, this section specifically grants the appropriate District Courts jurisdiction over 'all suits in equity and actions at law brought to enforce any liability or duty created' under the Act. The petitioners make no concessions, however, emphasizing that Congress made no specific reference to a private right of action in § 14(a); that, in any event, the right would not extend to derivative suits and should be limited to prospective relief only. In addition, some of the petitioners argue that the merger can be dissolved only if it was fraudulent or non-beneficial, issues upon which the proxy material would not bear. But the causal relationship of the proxy material and the merger are questions of fact to be resolved at trial, not here. We therefore do not discuss this point further.

III.

While the respondent contends that his Count 2 claim is not a derivative one, we need not...

To continue reading

Request your trial
1057 practice notes
  • SEC v. Lorin, No. 90 Civ. 7461 (HB).
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. Southern District of New York
    • November 21, 1994
    ...relief." (citations omitted)), cert. denied, 404 U.S. 1005, 92 S.Ct. 561, 562, 30 L.Ed.2d 558 (1971); see also J.I. Case Co. v. Borak, 377 U.S. 426, 433, 84 S.Ct. 1555, 1560, 12 L.Ed.2d 423 (1964) ("It is for the federal courts `to adjust their remedies so as to grant the necessary relief w......
  • Allen v. State Board of Elections Fairley v. Patterson Bunton v. Patterson Whitley v. Williams 36, Nos. 3
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • March 3, 1969
    ...authorizing members of the protected class to institute suit, nevertheless implied a private right of action. In J. I. Case Co. v. Borak, 377 U.S. 426, 84 S.Ct. 1555, 12 L.Ed.2d 423 (1964), we were called upon to consider § 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. 48 Stat. 895, 15 U.S.......
  • Local Division 519 v. LaCrosse Municipal Trans., No. 77-C-292.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 7th Circuit. Western District of Wisconsin
    • March 8, 1978
    ...solely on federal law? See Wheeldin v. Wheeler, 373 U.S. 647, 652, 83 S.Ct. 1441, 10 L.Ed.2d 605 (1963); cf. J. I. Case Co. v. Borak, 377 U.S. 426, 434, 84 S.Ct. 1555, 12 L.Ed.2d 423 (1964); Bivens v. Six Unknown Federal Narcotics Agents, 403 U.S. 388, 394-395, 91 S.Ct. 1999, 29 L.Ed.2d 619......
  • Planned Parenthood S. Atl v. Baker, No. 18-2133
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (4th Circuit)
    • October 29, 2019
    ...always this way, and a brief overview of this history is useful background to the present lawsuit. We begin with J.I. Case Co. v. Borak , 377 U.S. 426, 84 S.Ct. 1555, 12 L.Ed.2d 423 (1964), where the Supreme Court stated that federal courts were partners of Congress, making it "the duty of ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1047 cases
  • SEC v. Lorin, No. 90 Civ. 7461 (HB).
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. Southern District of New York
    • November 21, 1994
    ...relief." (citations omitted)), cert. denied, 404 U.S. 1005, 92 S.Ct. 561, 562, 30 L.Ed.2d 558 (1971); see also J.I. Case Co. v. Borak, 377 U.S. 426, 433, 84 S.Ct. 1555, 1560, 12 L.Ed.2d 423 (1964) ("It is for the federal courts `to adjust their remedies so as to grant the necessary relief w......
  • Allen v. State Board of Elections Fairley v. Patterson Bunton v. Patterson Whitley v. Williams 36, Nos. 3
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • March 3, 1969
    ...authorizing members of the protected class to institute suit, nevertheless implied a private right of action. In J. I. Case Co. v. Borak, 377 U.S. 426, 84 S.Ct. 1555, 12 L.Ed.2d 423 (1964), we were called upon to consider § 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. 48 Stat. 895, 15 U.S.......
  • Local Division 519 v. LaCrosse Municipal Trans., No. 77-C-292.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 7th Circuit. Western District of Wisconsin
    • March 8, 1978
    ...solely on federal law? See Wheeldin v. Wheeler, 373 U.S. 647, 652, 83 S.Ct. 1441, 10 L.Ed.2d 605 (1963); cf. J. I. Case Co. v. Borak, 377 U.S. 426, 434, 84 S.Ct. 1555, 12 L.Ed.2d 423 (1964); Bivens v. Six Unknown Federal Narcotics Agents, 403 U.S. 388, 394-395, 91 S.Ct. 1999, 29 L.Ed.2d 619......
  • Planned Parenthood S. Atl v. Baker, No. 18-2133
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (4th Circuit)
    • October 29, 2019
    ...always this way, and a brief overview of this history is useful background to the present lawsuit. We begin with J.I. Case Co. v. Borak , 377 U.S. 426, 84 S.Ct. 1555, 12 L.Ed.2d 423 (1964), where the Supreme Court stated that federal courts were partners of Congress, making it "the duty of ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 firm's commentaries
1 books & journal articles
  • Reform of the Federal Criminal Laws: A Major Change in Criminal Antitrust Liability
    • United States
    • Antitrust Bulletin Nbr. 19-3, September 1974
    • September 1, 1974
    ...in a subsequenttreble damage case,ifone is brought.P' And what standard61U.S.C. §§77a-77aa.6aU.S.C. §§78a-78hh.68J.I. Case v. Borak, 377 U.S. 426 (1964); Deckert v. Inde-pendence Shares Corp., 311 U.S. 282 (1940)." The answer appears to be no. Section5(a)of the Clayton Act,15 U.S.C.A §16(a)......

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