Klinicki v. Lundgren
Decision Date | 20 February 1985 |
Docket Number | Nos. TC,s. TC |
Citation | 298 Or. 662,695 P.2d 906 |
Parties | , 53 USLW 2445 F.R. KLINICKI, Petitioner on Review, v. Kim S. LUNDGREN, Berlinair, Inc., an Oregon corporation, and Air Berlin Charter Company, an Oregon corporation, Respondents on Review. F.R. KLINICKI, Respondent on Review, v. Kim S. LUNDGREN, Berlinair, Inc., an Oregon corporation, Cross-Respondent, and Air Berlin Charter Company, an Oregon corporation, Petitioner on Review. A7810-16086, CA A20084. |
Court | Oregon Supreme Court |
Brad Littlefield, of Goldsmith, Siegel, Engel & Littlefield, Portland, and Lloyd B. Egenes, of O'Gara, Friedman, Egenes & Burke, San Francisco, Cal., argued the cause and filed a petition and response for petitioner on review/respondent on review F.R. Klinicki.
Janet A. Metcalf, of English & Metcalf, Portland, argued the cause and filed a petition and response for petitioner on review/respondent on review Air Berlin Charter Co.
The factual and legal background of this complicated litigation was succinctly set forth by Chief Judge Joseph in the Court of Appeals opinion as follows:
Klinicki v. Lundgren, 67 Or.App. 160, 162-63, 678 P.2d 1250, 1251-52 (1984) (footnote omitted).
ABC appealed to the Court of Appeals contending that it did not usurp a corporate opportunity of Berlinair. Plaintiff cross-appealed from the trial court's dismissal of the punitive damages claim and from the entry of judgment in favor of Lundgren notwithstanding the verdict on that issue. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court on all issues.
ABC petitions for review to this court contending that the concealment and diversion of the BFR contract was not a usurpation of a corporate opportunity, because Berlinair did not have the financial ability to undertake that contract. ABC argues that proof of financial ability is a necessary part of a corporate opportunity case and that plaintiff had the burden of proof on that issue and did not carry that burden.
There is no dispute that the corporate opportunity doctrine precludes corporate fiduciaries from diverting to themselves business opportunities in which the corporation has an expectancy, property interest or right, or which in fairness should otherwise belong to the corporation. See Henn & Alexander, Laws of Corporations 632-37, § 237 (3rd ed. 1983). The doctrine follows from a corporate fiduciary's duty of undivided loyalty to the corporation. 2 ABC agrees that, unless Berlinair's financial inability to undertake the contract makes a difference, the BFR contract was a corporate opportunity of Berlinair. 3
We first address the issue, resolved by the Court of Appeals in Berlinair's favor, of the relevance of a corporation's financial ability to undertake a business opportunity to proving a diversion of corporate opportunity claim. This is an issue of first impression in Oregon.
The Court of Appeals held that a corporation's financial ability to undertake a business opportunity is not a factor in determining the existence of a corporate opportunity unless the defendant demonstrates that the corporation is technically or de facto insolvent. Without defining these terms, the Court of Appeals specifically placed the burden of proof 4 as to this issue on the fiduciary by saying: "To avoid liability for usurping a corporate opportunity on the basis that the corporation was insolvent, the fiduciary must prove insolvency." 67 Or.App. at 165, 678 P.2d at 1254. The Court of Appeals then concluded "that ABC usurped a corporate opportunity belonging to Berlinair when, acting through Lundgren, the BFR contract was diverted" because nothing in Lundgren's testimony or otherwise in the record suggested that Berlinair was insolvent or was no longer a viable corporate entity. 67 Or.App. at 166, 678 P.2d at 1254. Accordingly, the Court of Appeals held that the constructive trust, injunction, duty to account and other relief granted by the trial court against ABC were appropriate remedies.
One commentator, Daniel Walker, in Legal Handles Used to Open or Close the Corporate Opportunity Door, 56 NW UL Rev 608 (1961), wrote that few areas of the law are as plagued with platitudes as the fiduciary responsibility of corporate officers and directors. He noted that the Supreme Court of the United States, seemingly caught up in its enthusiasm for such platitudes, strings together a whole series of them quoting from Pepper v. Litton, 308 U.S. 295, 311, 60 S.Ct. 238, 247, 84 L.Ed. 281, 291-92 (1939):
" " Walker, 56 NW UL Rev at 608 n 1.
Walker then commented:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Loewen v. Galligan
...have found earlier drafts of the Principles useful in resolving other questions of corporate governance. See Klinicki v. Lundgren, 298 Or. 662, 681, 695 P.2d 906 (1985); Chiles v. Robertson, supra, 94 Or.App. at 620, 767 P.2d 903. Section 7.02(a) of the Principles provides the rules governi......
-
In re Albion Disposal, Inc.
...Corporations —Law & Policy 72 (2d Ed.1988). 64 Farber v. Servan Land Co., 662 F.2d 371 (5th Cir.1981). 65 Klinicki v. Lundgren, Berlinair, Inc., 298 Or. 662, 695 P.2d 906 (1985). In addition, full disclosure must be made to the 66 Central R. Signal Co. v. Longden, 194 F.2d 310 (7th Cir.1952......
-
Bybee Farms, LLC v. Snake River Sugar Co.
...1086 (1977); Naito v. Naito, 178 Or.App. 1, 20, 35 P.3d 1068 (2001). Directors owe the same duties. See, e.g., Klinicki v. Lundgren, 298 Or. 662, 683, 695 P.2d 906 (1985); Chiles v. Robertson, 94 Or.App. 604, 619, 767 P.2d 903, on recons., 96 Or.App. 658, 774 P.2d 500, rev. den., 308 Or. 59......
-
Ostrowski v. Avery
...by the courts of Maine and Oregon. Northeast Harbor Golf Club, Inc. v. Harris, 661 A.2d 1146, 1151-52 (Me.1995); Klinicki v. Lundgren, 298 Or. 662, 682-83, 695 P.2d 906 (1985); 13 contra Broz v. Cellular Information Systems, Inc., 673 A.2d 148, 157 The bright line approach taken by the Prin......
-
Conflicts of Interest and the Director's Duty of Loyalty
...great majority of shareholders have approved. 24. Miller v. Miller, 222 N.W.2d 71, 79 (Mn. 1974). 25. Supra, note 6. 26. Id. at 1366. 27. 695 P.2d 906 (Ore. 1985). 28. 520 A.2d 469 (Pa.Super.Ct. 1987). Column Ed.: Jill B.W. Denver---629-1500 This newsletter is prepared by the Corporation, B......