Eigerman v. Putnam Investments, Inc.
Decision Date | 20 December 2007 |
Docket Number | SJC-09854. |
Citation | 450 Mass. 281,877 N.E.2d 1258 |
Parties | Nathan EIGERMAN v. PUTNAM INVESTMENTS, INC., & another.<SMALL><SUP>1</SUP></SMALL> |
Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
Joel Z. Eigerman, Boston, for the plaintiff.
Benjamin Robbins, Boston, for New England Legal Foundation & another, amici curiae, submitted a brief.
Elizabeth A. Rodgers & Philip J. Gordon, Boston, for National Employment Lawyers' Association, amicus curiae, submitted a brief.
Present: MARSHALL, C.J., GREANEY, IRELAND, SPINA, COWIN, CORDY, & BOTSFORD, JJ.
The plaintiff seeks declaratory relief and monetary damages against the defendants Putnam Investments, Inc. (Putnam), and its subsidiary, Putnam Investment Management, LLC (Management), for breach of his contract of employment. The breach allegedly occurred when Putnam adopted an informal policy discouraging the plaintiff2 from exercising his right to tender, for redemption by Putnam, shares of Class B common stock received pursuant to an employee equity participation plan. A judge in the Superior Court allowed the defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint, pursuant to Mass. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), 365 Mass. 754 (1974), for failure to state a claim. The Appeals Court reversed. See Eigerman v. Putnam Invs., Inc., 66 Mass.App.Ct. 222, 846 N.E.2d 418 (2006). We allowed the defendants' application for further appellate review, and we now affirm the judgment.
1. The complaint alleges the following facts, which we accept, together with any favorable inferences reasonably drawn therefrom, as true for purposes of this appeal. See Ginther v. Commissioner of Ins., 427 Mass. 319, 322, 693 N.E.2d 153 (1998). We do not, however, accept or set forth "legal conclusions [in the complaint] cast in the form of factual allegations." Schaer v. Brandeis Univ., 432 Mass. 474, 477, 735 N.E.2d 373 (2000). See Papasan v. Allain, 478 U.S. 265, 286, 106 S.Ct. 2932, 92 L.Ed.2d 209 (1986). In 1997, Putnam created a plan whereby its key employees, and those of its subsidiaries, could choose to receive shares of the company's Class B common stock.3 According to a document entitled "Putnam Investments, Inc., Equity Participation Plan" (the document is attached to the plaintiff's complaint as an exhibit), the plan's purpose was "to foster and promote the longterm financial success of Putnam ... by ... enabling Putnam to attract and retain the services of an outstanding management team ..., motivating superior performance by participants in the Plan and ... providing participants in the Plan with an ownership interest in Putnam." The document sets forth the following relevant plan details: ownership of the shares granted to employees vests over a period of four years; employees must sell all of their vested shares back to Putnam on leaving employment; and, in addition, during ten-day window periods in the spring and fall each year, employees have the option of tendering their vested shares for redemption by Putnam. The document provided a formula tying Putnam's purchase price at any set time to the past year's earnings of the company.
The plaintiff, who was employed at the time by Management, became a plan participant in March, 1999. By the fall of 2001, the redemption price of the stock was $108.84 per share, which was near its all-time high value. As a consequence, the plaintiff offered his shares for repurchase pursuant to the terms of the plan. The plaintiff considered the ownership and redemption rights in Class B common stock in Putnam to be material terms of his employment contract.
On January 28, 2002, Putnam's then chairman and chief executive officer, Lawrence J. Lasser, issued a memorandum to participants in the plan (the Lasser memorandum also is attached to the plaintiff's complaint) announcing Putnam's adoption of a new "informal policy" to "encourage recipients to hold Putnam equity."4 The Lasser memorandum stated that the sale of vested shares to meet personal needs, such as tax requirements, would be considered "acceptable and will not be questioned." The Lasser memorandum asked, however, that "prior to selling any Putnam equity during a window period for reasons other than meeting tax obligations, [an employee should] discuss the reasons behind such a sale with [the employee's] Operating Head." The memorandum indicated that sales of Putnam equity would be "track[ed]" to allow for development of "a better understanding of why people reduce or divest their Putnam equity holdings given the now better clarified view that Putnam equity is awarded as a long-term incentive vehicle" (emphasis original).5
The plaintiff understood the Lasser memorandum as an implicit threat that any attempt to resell the shares, for reasons other than those set forth as acceptable in the memorandum, would seriously jeopardize his employment relationship with Putnam. He asserts that the memorandum was designed to intimidate him (and other plan participants) into surrendering his contractual right under the plan to tender his vested shares for redemption. As a result of the memorandum, the plaintiff refrained from tendering any shares during 2002, when the redemption price of the shares was $74.57. Indeed, fewer than half as many shares were offered for redemption during 2002 as were offered in 2001 because the plaintiff, and others, were deterred from offering their shares by the implicit and explicit threats in the memorandum.
The plaintiff tendered all of his vested shares for sale to Putnam on leaving the company in March, 2003, as the plan required him to do. By that time, the redemption price of the stock had fallen to $39.57. The plaintiff claims that had he not been deterred in 2002 by the Lasser memorandum from redeeming his shares in accordance with his rights under the plan, he would have realized $35,562.50 more on the sale of his shares. The plaintiff's complaint alleges that the defendants, by issuing the Lasser memorandum and thereby preventing him from reselling his shares of Class B common stock to Putnam, violated his employment contract. We now consider whether the judge's dismissal of the complaint for failure to state a claim was warranted.6
2. Under the established standard by which a motion pursuant to rule 12(b)(6) is decided, the complaint will survive if it appears that the plaintiff may be entitled to relief, "even though the particular relief he has demanded and the theory on which he seems to rely may not be appropriate." Nader v. Citron, 372 Mass. 96, 104, 360 N.E.2d 870 (1977). A motion to dismiss will be allowed only where it is certain that the plaintiff is not entitled to relief under any combination of facts that could be drawn, or reasonably inferred, from the allegations contained in the complaint. See Spinner v. Nutt, 417 Mass. 549, 550, 631 N.E.2d 542 (1994). Put differently, a motion to dismiss must be denied "unless it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief." Nader v. Citron, supra at 98, 360 N.E.2d 870, quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46, 78 S.Ct. 99, 2 L.Ed.2d 80 (1957). In spite of the generous standard that guides our review, we conclude that the plaintiff has set forth no facts that would entitle him to relief.7
It is true, as the plaintiff points out, that the language of the plan provided no restriction on his right to tender any portion of his vested shares for redemption by Putnam, other than the temporal provision that any tender, for nonemergency purposes, must take place during certain windows of time. The plaintiff in his complaint, however, overlooks other language in the plan that is clearly relevant and, in our view, dispositive of his claim. That language provides that "Putnam shall have no obligation to purchase such Class B Shares" tendered by employees for redemption, and it appears as an express term of the provisions of the plan dealing with the treatment of Class B shares held on the termination of employment or acquired thereafter; unforeseen personal hardship; and the sale of Class B shares and restricted stock to Putnam and the cancellation of options. In light of this language, we cannot accept the bare assertion in the plaintiff's complaint that by sending the Lasser memorandum to the plaintiff, the defendants violated the terms of the plan and violated his contract of employment. See Schaer v. Brandeis Univ., 432 Mass. 474, 477, 735 N.E.2d 373 (2000) (). The interpretation of a contract is a question of law for the court. Whether a contract is ambiguous is also a question of law. See Fashion House, Inc. v. K mart Corp., 892 F.2d 1076, 1083 (1st Cir.1989). There is no ambiguity here that would allow a court to search for an intent of the parties not to be held strictly to the plain terms of the contract language (an intent, the plaintiff argues, that may be seen in Putnam's consistent past redemption of shares, its valuation of the stock for tax purposes, and other alleged conduct on the part of the defendants). The plaintiff has not stated a claim for breach of contract because even if he had tendered his shares, Putnam had no legal obligation under the plan to purchase them.
The plaintiff fares no better under the law of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, a common-law doctrine applicable to every contract in Massachusetts. See Anthony's Pier Four, Inc. v. HBC Assocs., 411 Mass. 451, 473, 583 N.E.2d 806 (1991). We recently had occasion to consider the doctrine in the context of a motion to dismiss a complaint filed by a holder of stock in a biotechnology corporation's biosurgery division against the corporation and its individual directors. See Chokel v. Genzyme Corp., 449 Mass. 272, 276, 867 N.E.2d 325 (2007). We stated that ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Scholz v. Goudreau
...at 100 ). The covenant is breached "when one party violates the reasonable expectations of the other." Eigerman v. Putnam Invs., Inc. , 450 Mass. 281, 287–88, 877 N.E.2d 1258 (2007). Because the Court concludes that Goudreau's claim for breach of contract may proceed, premised on Scholz's a......
-
Renovator's Supply, Inc. v. Sovereign Bank
...Corp., supra at 385, 805 N.E.2d 957; Chokel v. Genzyme Corp., 449 Mass. 272, 276, 867 N.E.2d 325 (2007); Eigerman v. Putnam Invs., Inc., 450 Mass. 281, 288, 877 N.E.2d 1258 (2007). The difference between the implication of a duty of good faith and fairness in the performance of existing ter......
-
Doe v. W. New Eng. Univ.
...132 (D. Mass. 2005). "A breach occurs when one party violates the reasonable expectations of the other." Eigerman v. Putnam Invs., Inc. , 450 Mass. 281, 877 N.E.2d 1258, 1264 (2007) (citing Uno Rests. , 805 N.E.2d at 966 ).The allegations of the Complaint are sufficient to state a breach of......
-
View Point Med. Sys., LLC v. Athena Health, Inc.
...Speakman v. Allmerica Fin. Life Ins., 367 F.Supp.2d 122, 132 (D.Mass.2005) ); see also, e.g., Eigerman v. Putnam Investments, Inc., 450 Mass. 281, 287–90, 877 N.E.2d 1258, 1263–66 (2007) (separately analyzing whether plaintiff stated an implied covenant claim after concluding that he failed......