Citizens Nat. Bank of St. Petersburg v. Peters, 5896
| Decision Date | 14 May 1965 |
| Docket Number | No. 5896,5896 |
| Parties | CITIZENS NATIONAL BANK OF ST. PETERSBURG, Richard T. Earle, et al ., Appellants, v. William PETERS, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Leslie D. Franklin, of Earle & Williams, St. Petersburg, for appellants.
Theodore C. Taub, of Nuccio & Taub, Tampa, for appellee.
Appellants, by way of interlocutory appeal, seek review of a chancery order denying their motion that plaintiff-appellee, a shareholder in appellant bank, be required to put up security for costs incurred in defending this suit under the provisions of Section 608.131, Florida Statutes, F.S.A. (1963).
Section 608.131, adopted by the 1963 Florida Legislature, is what is known as security-for-expenses legislation. New York was the first state to pass such legislation, N. Y. General Corporation Law, McKinney's Consol.Laws, c. 23, § 61-b (1944), and a number of states have seen fit to follow the example. See 13 Fletcher, Private Corporations § 5971.1 (rev. ed. 1961). The avowed purpose of such legislation is to remedy stockholder abuse of the derivative suit by prosecution of the so-called 'strike suit.' Fuller v. American Machine & Foundry Co., 97 F.Supp. 742 (S.D.N.Y.1951).
Section 608.131, by its terms, applies to any action commenced by a stockholder to procure a judgment in the corporation's favor. In other words, the statute applies only to stockholders' derivative actions.
Subsection (4) of the statute provides for the posting of security by stockholders holding less than a prescribed financial interest in the corporation. Holdings of less than five per cent of the outstanding shares or voting trust certificates, or holdings failing to exceed fifty thousand dollars in value, make the statute operative. It was stipulated by counsel for plaintiff that plaintiff's financial interest in the bank was less than the statutory prescription.
The chancellor held that plaintiff's suit was not a derivative action; hence, the statute did not apply and posting security was unnecessary. We reverse.
A Florida court has defined a derivative suit as an action in which a stockholder seeks to enforce a right of action existing in the corporation. See James Talcott, Inc. v. McDowell, Fla.App.1962, 148 So.2d 36. Conversely, a direct action, or as some prefer, an individual action, is a suit by a stockholder to enforce a right of action existing in him. See 13 Fletcher, Private Corporations § 5911 (rev. ed. 1961).
What these definitions attempt to convey is that a stockholder may bring a suit in his own right to redress an injury sustained directly by him, and which is separate and distinct from that sustained by other stockholders. If, however, the injury is primarily against the corporation, or the stockholders generally, then the cause of action is in the corporation and the individual's right to bring it is derived from the corporation.
Obviously, the character of plaintiff's suit must be determined from the gravamen of his complaint. The complaint alleges that the individual defendants, directors of the bank, (a) relinquished certain assets in excess of $130,000 in the settlement of certain lawsuits brought against the bank; (b) relinquished assets pledged and mortgaged to the bank as security for obligations, which were owed by one of the litigants and past due; and (c) paid to the litigants, in cash, a sum in excess of $32,000. The complaint further alleges that one of the defendant-directors is the attorney of record for one of the litigants.
What appears to be an independent count is the allegation that plaintiff has received notice of the offering of additional shares of common stock, and that from said notice plaintiff is unable to determine (a) the date of issue; (b) the extent to which additional...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Schein v. Chasen
...v. McDowell, 148 So.2d 36 (Fla.App.3, 1962); Maronek v. Atlantis Hotel, Inc., 148 So.2d 721 (Fla.App.3, 1963); Citizen's National Bank of St. Petersburg v. Peters, 175 So.2d 54 (Fla.App.2, 1965). Specifically, the United States District Court "Under present Florida case law, a plaintiff in ......
-
Sunrise Securities Litigation, In re
...the corporation and the shareholder's right to bring the action derives from the corporation. Id. (quoting Citizens National Bank v. Peters, 175 So.2d 54, 56 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1965)). The Florida courts have not specifically addressed the issue of derivative claims in the context of a saving......
-
International Ins. Co. v. Johns
...Hale, 119 Fla. 159, 161 So. 284 (Fla.1935); Lake Region Packing Assoc. Inc. v. Furze, 327 So.2d 212 (Fla.1976); Citizens Nat'l. Bank v. Peters, 175 So.2d 54 (Fla. 2d DCA 1965); Yarnell Warehouse & Transfer, Inc. v. Three Ivory Bros. Moving Co., 226 So.2d 887 (Fla. 2d DCA 1969). This deferen......
-
Schein v. Chasen
...v. McDowell, 148 So.2d 36 (Fla.App.3d, 162); Maronek v. Atlantis Hotel, Inc., 148 So.2d 721 (Fla.App.3d, 1963); Citizens National Bank of St. Petersburg v. Peters, 175 So.2d 54 (Fla.App.2, 1965). Specifically, the United States District Court 'Under present Florida case law, a plaintiff in ......
-
Business litigation
...exclusively to the entity and can only be asserted by it in a direct action. [ Citzens National Bank of St. Petersburg v. Peters , 175 So. 2d 54, 55-56 (Fla. 2d DCA 1965); Dinuro Inves., LLC v. Camacho , 141 So. 3d 731, 735-42 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014).] On the other hand, a corporate shareholder ......