Gilliland v. USCO Power Equipment Corp.

Decision Date14 January 1994
Citation631 So.2d 938
PartiesWilliam H. GILLILAND and Elsie B. Gilliland v. USCO POWER EQUIPMENT CORPORATION and Ted Lankford. 1920635.
CourtAlabama Supreme Court

Andrew P. Campbell, Eddie Leitman, S. Lynne Stephens and K. Phillip Luke of Leitman, Siegal, Payne & Campbell, P.C., Birmingham, for appellants.

Frank M. Bainbridge of Bainbridge, Mims & Rogers, Birmingham, for appellees.

PER CURIAM.

The plaintiffs appeal from a dismissal of their complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), Ala.R.Civ.P. "Motions to dismiss should be granted sparingly, and a dismissal is proper only when it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of the claim which would entitle the plaintiff to relief." Hill v. Kraft, Inc., 496 So.2d 768, 769 (Ala.1986); Fraternal Order of Police, Strawberry Lodge # 40 v. Entrekin, 294 Ala. 201, 314 So.2d 663 (1975).

After a careful review of the record, the briefs, the oral arguments, and the law, we conclude that the complaint states a claim on which relief can be granted. See, e.g., Ex parte Brown, 562 So.2d 485 (Ala.1990).

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

HORNSBY, C.J., and MADDOX, ALMON, SHORES, KENNEDY, INGRAM and COOK, JJ., concur.

HOUSTON, J., concurs in the result.

HOUSTON, Justice (concurring in the result).

After studying the complaint in this case and the majority opinion in Ex parte Brown, 562 So.2d 485 (Ala.1990), I am persuaded that, under our standard for reviewing Rule 12(b)(6), A.R.Civ.P., dismissals, we must reverse and remand; however, I wish that we would clarify the nature of the cause of action for oppression or squeeze-out of minority stockholders and the rules regarding standing to bring such an action.

I do not know how broad our cause of action for oppression or squeeze-out of minority stockholders is (Ex parte Brown, supra (Houston, J., dissenting)) or whether it sounds in tort or in contract (Fulton v. Callahan, 621 So.2d 1235, 1254-55 (Ala.1993) (Houston, J., concurring specially)); however, in Ex parte Brown, 562 So.2d at 492, the majority of this Court wrote the following:

"O'Neal's Oppression of Minority Shareholders, § 3.02, describes squeeze out techniques as follows:

" ' § 3.02. Squeeze techniques in general ... [H]olders of a majority of the voting shares in a corporation, through their ability to elect and control a majority of the directors and to determine the outcome of shareholders' votes on other matters, have tremendous power to use a great variety of devices or modes of operation to benefit themselves at the expense of minority shareholders.

" 'Here are a few illustrations. The squeezers may refuse to declare dividends [the basis for an individual "squeeze-out" claim]; they may drain off the corporation's earnings by exorbitant salaries and bonuses to the majority shareholder-officers and perhaps to their relatives, by high rental agreements for property the corporation leases from majority shareholders, or by unreasonable payments under contracts between the corporation and majority shareholders [the basis for a derivative claim]; they may deprive minority shareholders of corporate offices and of employment by the company [the basis for an individual claim]; they may cause the corporation to sell its assets at an inadequate price to the majority shareholders or to companies in which the majority are interested [the basis for a derivative claim]; they may organize a new company in which the minority will have no interest, transfer the corporation's assets or business to it, and perhaps then dissolve the old corporation [a derivative claim only]; or they may bring about the merger or consolidation of the corporation under a plan unfair to the minority. [See preceding comment.] As indicated, the techniques listed here merely illustrate the techniques which resourceful squeezers may utilize.'

"F.H. O'Neal and R. Thompson,...

To continue reading

Request your trial
6 cases
  • Trondheim Capital Partners, LP v. Life Ins. Co. of Ala.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Alabama
    • December 8, 2020
    ...to assert that claim directly. Altrust Fin. Servs., Inc. v. Adams , 76 So. 3d 228, 241–42 (Ala. 2011) (citing Gilliland v. USCO Power Equip. Corp. , 631 So. 2d 938, 940 (Ala. 1994) ). More recently, however, the Court has pointed out that whether a claim is derivative or direct is better cl......
  • Altrust Fin. Servs., Inc. v. Hughes, 1091610
    • United States
    • Alabama Supreme Court
    • July 29, 2011
    ...1229 (Ala.1983). Justice Houston noted the general rule in his special writing concurring in the result in Gilliland v. USCO Power Equipment Corp., 631 So.2d 938 (Ala.1994): “ ‘As explained in Galbreath [ v. Scott, 433 So.2d 454 (Ala.1983),] the primary difference between derivative and ind......
  • Butterworth v. Morgan Keegan & Co.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Alabama
    • September 28, 2012
    ...So. 2d 1064 (Ala.1989).'Altrust Financial Services, Inc. v. Adams, 76 So. 3d 228, 241-42 (Ala. 2011), citing Gilland v. USCO Power Equipment Corp., 631 So. 2d 938, 940 (Ala. 1994) (quoting Andrew P. Campbell, Litigating Minority Shareholder Rights and the New Tort of Oppression, 53 ALA. LAW......
  • Crum v. Johns Manville, Inc.
    • United States
    • Alabama Court of Civil Appeals
    • March 13, 2009
    ...the plaintiff to relief."'" DRC, Inc. v. Great American Ins. Cos., 901 So.2d 710, 713 (Ala.2004) (quoting Gilliland v. USCO Power Equip. Corp., 631 So.2d 938, 939 (Ala.1994), quoting in turn Hill v. Kraft, Inc., 496 So.2d 768, 769 (Ala.1986)). Furthermore, "[i]n considering whether a compla......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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