Ellis Canning Company v. Bernstein
Decision Date | 29 September 1972 |
Docket Number | Civ. A. No. C-3125. |
Citation | 348 F. Supp. 1212 |
Parties | ELLIS CANNING COMPANY, a Colorado corporation, Plaintiff, v. Arthur J. BERNSTEIN et al., Defendants. |
Court | U.S. District Court — District of Colorado |
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
William Robinson Fishman, Isaacson, Rosenbaum & Goldberg, by Sheldon E. Friedman, Denver, Colo., for plaintiff.
Sterling & Simon, by Harry M. Sterling, Denver, Colo., and Samuel M. Gilman, Rock Island, Ill., for defendants.
United Packers, Inc., is a food packaging company which, in 1970, had its main plant in Opelousas, Louisiana, and which maintained its managerial offices in Chicago, Illinois. It was run by the defendant Bernstein, a lawyer turned meat packer. One of its principal products was vienna sausage, and Ellis Canning, which is owned by N. L. Koin, is a large buyer and marketer of vienna sausage. Defendants Tunick and Stone were stockholders in and directors of United who acquired their interests in 1969 for an investment by Tunick of $75,000 and an investment by Stone of $25,000, but at all times material to this case, United was operated and controlled by Bernstein.
United was losing money, and by 1970, it was teetering on the brink of bankruptcy. Early in that year, Ellis started to purchase large quantities of vienna sausage from United, but these purchases were accomplished under unconventional financing arrangements. When Ellis decided to place an order, one-half of the purchase price would be advanced to United to finance production of the order. Then, when the vienna sausage was manufactured and shipped, Ellis would pay the second half of the purchase price upon receipt of shipping documents. By mid-1970, all of the defendants had become convinced that United was a poor investment, and with the knowledge and approval of Tunick and Stone, Bernstein was trying desperately to sell the company, and he made several unsuccessful efforts to sell it to various of the large meat packers. Finally, with a bankruptcy proceeding under active study, and again with the knowledge and approval of Tunick and Stone, Bernstein contacted Koin to see if he could be interested in bailing out the three defendants. He assured Koin that United's problems were solvable, and he wrote that if United could build a reasonable volume, United should net at least $100,000 per year. The volume Ellis was in a position to furnish United would have gone a long way towards providing the sales Bernstein said were needed to make up the "reasonable volume." He also assured Koin that the values of physical assets shown on United's books were far below actual values.
There were many conversations, both telephonic and face to face, between Bernstein and Koin during the period of approximately July 1, 1970, to early October of that year. On October 6, 1970, Bernstein and United's vice-president, James Pitrie, came to Denver to try to finalize the sale. By this time, a purchase arrangement keyed to a Chapter XI Bankruptcy proceeding had been generally agreed to. The concept of this plan was that United would apply to the Bankruptcy Court for a Chapter XI arrangement; Ellis would advance operating capital to the Chapter XI, but the identity of Ellis would not be disclosed to United's creditors; United would be operated under Chapter XI with funds advanced by Ellis and a compromise arrangement would be worked out with the creditors. Ellis would then pay the defendants for their stock in United, and it would be transferred to Ellis; and, of course, at this point Ellis would own the company debt free for a total investment of its advances to the Chapter XI and its payment to defendants for their stock. This neat arrangement would permit United to operate under court protection while settlements with United's creditors were being effected, and, in the meantime, the advances by Ellis to the Chapter XI operation occupied in preferential position.
At the October 6, 1970, meeting, Bernstein and Pitrie met with Koin and Louis Isaacson, Koin's attorney, at Isaacson's office in Denver. Most of the discussion at this meeting had to do with the intricacies and mechanics of the Chapter XI purchase arrangement and its financing. It was agreed at this meeting that Ellis would provide $200,000 to the Chapter XI, $130,000 of which would be used for operating capital, and $70,000 to take care of the creditors' arrangement. Of course, this was contingent upon working out a satisfactory agreement for the purchase of defendants' stock in United, the purchase to be made, according to an earlier letter from United's Opelousas attorney, "independent of the Chapter XI proceedings," but the Chapter XI financing and the stock acquisition were always tied together as part of an overall plan.
The next day, Bernstein and Koin met at Koin's office to thrash out the stock purchase agreement and other remaining details of the deal. Following this meeting, Bernstein telephoned Isaacson and advised him that agreement had been reached between Bernstein and Koin encompassing the procedures to be followed and the advances to be made to the Chapter XI as well as the purchase of defendants' stock in United. Defendants were to receive $100,000 for their stock, but this amount was to be paid out of profits. Isaacson advised Bernstein that since time would not permit them to get together, he wanted Bernstein to summarize the agreement with Koin and that he wanted to tape record the summarization. Bernstein approved the tape recording of the remainder of the conversation, and, at time of trial, he acknowledged its accuracy. A transcript of that full conversation was received in evidence, and during the taped portion of that conversation, this is what was said:1
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Reprosystem, BV v. SCM Corp.
...and syndication rights for the television program "All In The Family" was held to be binding. Accord, Ellis Canning Co. v. Bernstein, 348 F.Supp. 1212 (D.Colo.1972); Itek Corp. v. Chicago Aerial Industries, Inc., 248 A.2d 625 Thus, the objective manifestations of SCM and the plaintiffs must......
-
Donovan v. RRL Corp.
...the parties has been determined to meet the signature requirement of the Uniform Commercial Code. (Ellis Canning Company v. Bernstein (D.Colo. 1972) 348 F.Supp. 1212,1228.) When an advertisement constitutes an offer, the printed name of the merchant is intended to authenticate the advertise......
-
Lewis v. Hughes
...Code when the defendant, at trial, concedes the existence of the agreement. Section 8-319(b); accord, Ellis Canning Co. v. Bernstein, 348 F.Supp. 1212, 1228 (D.Colo.1972) (alternative holding); Kohlmeyer & Co. v. Bowen, 126 Ga.App. 700, 192 S.E.2d 400, 405-06 (1972); Blankenfeld v. Smith, 2......
-
W. Acceptance, LLC v. Gen. Agric.
... ... Acceptance”], a Colorado limited liability company ... headquartered in Colorado Springs, Colorado, has sued three ... contract will result.” Ellis Canning Co. v ... Bernstein , 348 F.Supp. 1212, 1223 (D. Colo ... ...
-
CHAPTER 1 DEAL FORMATION ISSUES IN OIL AND GAS ASSET ACQUISITIONS
...36 (Colo. 1981); Mid-Continent Petroleum Corp. v. Russell, 173 F.2d 620 (10th Cir. (Okla.) 1949). [8] Ellis Canning Co. v. Bernstein, 348 F. Supp. 1212 (D. Colo. 1972); Coulter v. Anderson, 357 P.2d 76, 80 (Colo. 1960) (To enforce, the contract must be complete; but a court will not require......
-
Electronic Commerce in Kansas Contract Formation and Formalities Under Article 2
...requirement of statute of frauds) and Roos v. Aloi, 487 N.Y.S.2d 637 (Sup. Ct. 1985) (same) with Ellis Canning Co. v. Bernstein, 348 F. Supp. 1212, 1228 (D. Colo. 1972) (holding that "when the parties to an oral contract agree that the oral contract shall be tape recorded, the contract is '......
-
Washington's Electronic Signature Act: an Anachronism in the New Millennium
...(holding that a contract is formed when telephone message is transmitted to telegraph operator). 33. Ellis Canning Co. v. Bernstein, 348 F. Supp. 1212, 1228 (D. Colo. 1972) (holding that a tape recording of an oral agreement satisfies the statute of frauds). But see Swink and Co. v. Carroll......
-
Letters of Intent: Are They Binding?
...1944); Mile Hi Apartments, Inc. v. Mr. Lucky's, Inc., 518 P.2d 854 (Colo.App. 1974) (n.s.o.p.). 4. Ellis Canning Co. v. Bernstein, 348 F.Supp. 1212, 1221 (D.Colo. 1972). 5. See American Mining Co. v. Himrod-Kimball Mines Co., 235 P.2d 804, 807 (Colo. 1951); Mestas, supra, note 3; D.A.C. Ura......