Kaminsky v. Abrams

• Decision Date: 21 February 1968
• Docket Number: No. 66 Civ. 221.,66 Civ. 221.
• Citation: 281 F. Supp. 501
• Parties: Simon KAMINSKY, Plaintiff, v. Benjamin ABRAMS, Max Abrams, Stanley L. Abrams, Joseph T. Dineen, Dorman D. Israel, Simon H. Rifkind, Percy West, Mary Abrams, C. Russell Feldmann, Joseph V. McKee, Jr., Ralph J. Guda, Arthur H. Dean, Fred Abrams, Abraham A. Vogel, Martin Richmond, Joseph Kattan and Emerson Radio and Phonograph Corporation, Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York

281 F. Supp. 501

Simon KAMINSKY, Plaintiff, v. Benjamin ABRAMS, Max Abrams, Stanley L. Abrams, Joseph T. Dineen, Dorman D. Israel, Simon H. Rifkind, Percy West, Mary Abrams, C. Russell Feldmann, Joseph V. McKee, Jr., Ralph J. Guda, Arthur H. Dean, Fred Abrams, Abraham A. Vogel, Martin Richmond, Joseph Kattan and Emerson Radio and Phonograph Corporation, Defendants.

No. 66 Civ. 221.

United States District Court S. D. New York.

February 21, 1968.

Abraham I. Markowitz, New York City, for plaintiff.

Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison, New York City, for defendants Stanley L. Abrams, Joseph T. Dineen and Mary Abrams; Paul J. Newlon, New York City, and Doris Carroll, of counsel.

MANSFIELD, District Judge.

In this derivative action, plaintiff, an Emerson Radio and Phonograph Corporation (Emerson) stockholder, asserts that Emerson has been defrauded in contravention of various provisions of the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and seeks recovery against members of the Board of Directors and Mrs. Mary Abrams, the widow of Louis Abrams (Abrams), a founder, director, officer and active executive of Emerson, and a member of the family which controlled Emerson from 1924 until his death in 1963. No diversity jurisdiction is asserted.

The alleged injury arises out of a 1956 oral agreement entered into between Emerson and Abrams for the payment of "reasonable" death benefits to his family, should he die while in the employ of Emerson or its subsidiaries, in consideration of Abrams' continuing in Emerson's employ. The agreement was entered into on the occasion of the liquidation of the Emerson-New York division, by which Abrams had been employed, which resulted in termination of his pension plan and death benefit coverage. Following Abrams' death in 1963, Emerson's Board of Directors adopted a resolution to pay his widow, Mrs. Abrams, $10,000 a year for ten years or for her life, whichever was shorter. To date, she has been paid $20,000.

Plaintiff contends that the failure to report the agreement to Emerson's stockholders in its annual reports and proxy statements; to the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Commission); and to the New York Stock Exchange, with which Emerson has been listed, violated § 17(a) of the Securities Act, 15 U.S.C.A. § 77q(a), and §§ 10(b), 12(b) (1), 13(a) (1), 14(a), 20, 29 and 32(a) of the Securities Exchange Act, 15 U.S. C.A. §§ 78j(b), 78l(b) (1), 78m(a) (1), 78n(a), 78t, 78cc and 78ff. As a result of these alleged violations, plaintiff seeks damages and an injunction against further payments to Mrs. Abrams under the agreement.

Plaintiff's Failure to Make a Demand in Compliance with Rule 23.1, F.R.Civ.P.

The defendants move, pursuant to Rule 12(b) (6), F.R.C.P., to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Their first attack is founded on the contention that plaintiff's failure to make a demand upon Emerson's directors constituted non-compliance with Rule 23.1, F.R.C.P. Plaintiff alleges that National, the corporation now controlling Emerson, would not find it in its own interest to commence the action against its own nominee directors, some of whom had been on Emerson's Board continuously during and after 1956, and that an action brought by Emerson would be in hostile hands and not diligently prosecuted. In an earlier decision in this case, Kaminsky v. Abrams, 41 F.R.D. 168 (S.D.N.Y.1966), Judge Tenney ruled that the complaint's allegations were sufficient to justify plaintiff's refusal to make a demand upon Emerson or its Board. Although the law of the case doctrine does not bind a subsequent court faced with the same issue, LeRoy v. Sabena Belgian World Airlines, 344 F.2d 266 (2d Cir. 1965); Dictograph Prods. Co. v. Sonotone Corp., 230 F.2d 131 (2d Cir.) (L. Hand, J.), cert. denied, 352 U.S. 883, 77 S.Ct. 104, 1 L.Ed.2d 82 (1956), the allegations, if proved, would be sufficient to dispense with the necessity for a demand. Gottesman v. General Motors Corp., 268 F.2d 194 (2d Cir. 1959); Cathedral Estates v. Taft Realty Corp., 228 F.2d 85 (2d Cir. 1955); Heilbrunn v. Hanover Equities Corp., 259 F.Supp. 936 (S.D.N.Y.1966). Although the Court has the power to treat defendants' present motion as one for summary judgment pursuant to Rule 56, F.R.C.P., and might, on the basis of undisputed affidavit proof, dismiss the action for failure to show facts supporting the allegation that demand would be futile, the insufficiency of the complaint in other respects noted below makes it unnecessary to disturb Judge Tenney's ruling.

The Alleged Violation of §§ 17(a) of the Securities Act and 10(b) of the Exchange Act

Plaintiff argues that defendants' oral agreement with Louis Abrams and the 1963 Board of Directors Resolution constitute a "security" within the meaning of § 17(a) of the Securities Act, 15 U.S.C.A. § 77q(a), § 10(b) of the Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C.A. § 78j(b), and Rule 10b-5, 17 C.F.R. § 240.10b-5, so that the directors' failure to disclose occurred "in connection with the sale of a security". We doubt that the oral agreement and subsequent Board resolution constituted a "security" as defined in § 2(1) of the Securities Act, and § 3(a) (10) of the Exchange Act, because of the absence of any monetary investment in return for the death benefit agreement. See Tcherepnin v. Knight, 389 U.S. 332, 338, 88 S.Ct. 548, 19 L. Ed.2d 564 (1967) (test is whether scheme involves use of others' money on the promise of profits); but see SEC v. Addison, 194 F.Supp. 709, 716, 722 (N.D. Texas 1961). However, even if plaintiff's contention is accepted arguendo, the complaint is defective because of its failure to allege or show that Emerson has been damaged by the non-disclosure of the pension arrangement. Barnett v. Anaconda Co., 238 F.Supp. 766, 771-772 (S.D.N.Y.1966). There is no allegation, for instance, that the arrangement with Abrams was unfair to Emerson in terms of the services that he furnished to it. On the contrary, an agreement to pay such a modest sum to the widow would appear on its face to be eminently reasonable. Nor is there any suggestion that Emerson's Board lacked authority to make the arrangement, or that the matter was one calling for shareholder approval, see Globus, Inc. v. Jaroff, 266 F.Supp. 524 (S.D.N.Y.1967). In fact, the New York County Supreme Court has ruled to the contrary. Kaminsky v. Abrams, N. Y. Law Journal, p. 16 (Sup.Ct. Oct. 11, 1965) (waste of corporate assets claim dismissed). There is no claim that the Board, who had authority, lacked or were deprived of necessary information with which to arrive at an intelligent and rational decision. See Ruckle v. Roto American Corp., 339 F.2d 24 (2d Cir. 1964); Bromberg, Securities Law Fraud § 4.7 at 85 nn. 70-71 (1967).

In the absence of a contention that those authorized to make the corporate decision were themselves victims of false, misleading or deceptive conduct, or that disclosure would have caused them to act differently, a cause of action is not made out. Schoenbaum v. Firstbrook, 268 F.Supp. 385 (S.D.N.Y. 1967). The antifraud provisions of the Securities and Exchange Acts may not be invoked as an alternative means of remedying every alleged breach of fiduciary duty. See O'Neill v. Maytag, 339 F.2d 764 (2d Cir. 1964); Birnbaum v. Newport Steel Corp., 193 F.2d 461 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 343 U.S. 956, 72 S.Ct. 1051, 96 L.Ed. 1356 (1952); Lester v. Preco Industries, Inc., 282 F.Supp. 459 (S.D.N.Y.1965); Bromberg, supra at 83-84 n. 65. To so hold would be to treat §§ 17(a), 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 as mandates for the federal courts to inquire into every managerial decision, which they are not.

The fiduciary responsibilities of corporate directors are in the first instance defined by the law of the state of incorporation. Federal securities legislation supersedes state corporate law remedies only to the extent of any direct conflict between the two, § 28(a), Securities Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C.A. § 78bb(a); Errion v. Connell, 236 F.2d 447, 453-454 (9th Cir. 1956); McCollum v. Billings, 53 Misc.2d 661, 279 N.Y.S.2d 609 (1967); Fleischer, "Federal Corporation Law, An Assessment," 78 Harv.L.Rev. 1146, 1153 (1965); cf. Rice v. Sante Fe Elevator Corp., 331 U.S. 218, 230, 67 S.Ct. 1146, 91 L.Ed. 1447 (1947), and unless a matter is clearly covered exclusively by federal statute, it is deemed to be subject to state law. If Congress had intended to preempt the entire field, "so revolutionary a federal intervention", Loss says, "would presumably have been clearly expressed", II Loss, Securities Regulation 903. Thus, although federal securities laws have been construed broadly in the light of their remedial purposes, see J. I. Case Co. v. Borak, 377 U.S. 426, 84 S.Ct. 1555, 12 L.Ed.2d 423 (1964); SEC v. Capital Gains Research Bureau, Inc., 375 U.S. 180, 84 S.Ct. 275, 11 L.Ed.2d 237 (1963), they remain "incomplete and interstitial" in nature, Mishkin, The Variousness of "Federal Law," 105 U. of Pa. L.Rev. 797, 811 (1957), and do not represent a federal corporate law with respect to responsibility of officers and directors that has supremacy over state law, which Congress has never adopted. See Friendly, "In Praise of Erie — and of the New Federal Common Law," 39 N.Y. U.L.Rev. 383, 413-14 (1964).

The state courts have long assumed active jurisdiction over suits charging breaches of fiduciary duty involving the dissipation of corporate assets, developing a well-articulated body of applicable law. See, e. g., Globe Woolen Co. v. Utica Gas & Elec. Co., 224 N.Y. 483, 121 N.E. 378 (1918) (Cardozo, J.); Smith v. Dunlap, 269 Ala. 97, 111 So.2d 1 (1959); Maclary v. Pleasant Hills, Inc., 35 Del.Ch. 39, 109 A.2d 830 (1954); Darmana v. New Orleans Stock Yard, Inc., 226 La. 897, 77 So.2d 528 (1954); Berkwitz v. Humphrey, 163 F.Supp. 78 (N.D.Ohio 1958) (applying Ohio law). In the absence of a more explicit Congressional directive, this Court hesitates to take a...