Meade v. Pacific Gamble Robinson Co.
Decision Date | 25 March 1948 |
Citation | 58 A.2d 415,30 Del.Ch. 509 |
Court | Supreme Court of Delaware |
Parties | JOHN A. MEADE, Complainant Below, Appellant, v. PACIFIC GAMBLE ROBINSON CO., Respondent Below, Appellee. PACIFIC GAMBLE ROBINSON CO., Respondent Below, Appellant, v. JOHN A. MEADE, Complainant Below, Appellee |
APPEALS by John A. Meade and by Pacific Gamble Robinson Co. from different parts of a decree of the Court of Chancery. See opinion of the Vice-Chancellor, 29 Del.Ch. 406, 51 A.2d 313. The parties will be referred to as they were in the Court of Chancery.
William S. Potter and Richard F. Corroon, of the firm of Southerland Berl & Potter, and W. G. McLaren, of Seattle, Wash., for John A. Meade.
Hugh M Morris and Alexander L. Nichols, of the firm of Morris Steel, Nichols & Arsht, for Pacific Gamble Robinson Co.
OPINION
The complainant, Meade, was a shareholder of a corporation which was merged with another. The defendant, Pacific Gamble Robinson Co., is the surviving corporation. Complainant obtained an appraisal of his shares pursuant to Section 61 of the Delaware Corporation Law, Rev.Code of Del. (1935) § 2093, 43 Laws of Del. c. 132, § 16, p. 468 (under the provisions existing prior to the 1943 amendment of the act [44 Del.Laws, c. 125, § 5]). The main question is whether defendant must pay interest from the date of the merger on the value of the shares fixed by the appraisers.
The case began in Chancery by a petition of complainant for the appointment of a third appraiser under Section 61. The court appointed an appraiser who, together with the two appraisers designated by the parties, fixed a value of the shares. Later, defendant filed a petition in the original proceeding to compel complainant to assign to it his certificates for shares held in the merging company, upon payment to him of the amount of the appraisers' award; and to obtain the taxing of costs. Complainant took the position that he was entitled to the appraised value plus interest from the date of the merger. Upon motion of complainant, pending a hearing on defendant's petition, the Vice-Chancellor ordered defendant to pay the full amount of the appraisers' award so that complainant might at once receive all of it except $ 10,000, which sum was to be held in the registry of the court subject to further order; and likewise ordered complainant to deposit the certificates for his shares in the registry. After a hearing, the Vice-Chancellor held that interest on the award should not begin to run until sixty days after the decision of the appraisers and notice to defendant. Complainant assigns this part of the decree as error. The Vice-Chancellor taxed the costs against defendant. In its appeal, defendant assigns as error the taxing of all costs against it, and also the exclusion from costs of certain of its expenses in connection with the appraisal. The decree entered recites that the court was advised that complainant intended to prosecute an appeal. It then provides that the certificates for complainant's shares and the $ 10,000 deposited under the previous order be retained in the registry of the court pending the outcome of the appeal.
Section 61 of the Corporation Law, prior to the 1943 amendment, provided as follows:
Complainant elected to avail himself of the benefits of the statute to obtain a payment in money for his shares instead of accepting whatever would have been his rights under the merger agreement. Complainant claims as a benefit the right to interest from the date of the merger, or at least, from a date three months after the merger. This latter is based on the statutory direction that a surviving corporation shall within three months after...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Southdown, Inc. v. McGinnis
...wrong to the dissenting shareholders. There was full statutory authority to do precisely what was done. Meade v. Pacific Gamble Robinson Co., 30 Del.Ch. 509, 58 A.2d 415 (1948). The cited Nevada cases, therefore, are inapposite. Moreover, the stock certificates or 'contracts' include the st......
-
Francis I. duPont & Co. v. Universal City Studios, Inc.
... ... (Meade v. Pacific Gamble Robinson Co., (29) Del.Ch. (406), 51 A.2d 313, 316--321 ... ...
-
Salomon Bros. Inc. v. Interstate Bakeries Corp.
...only in connection with its discretionary decision on whether to allow interest pursuant to § 262(h). See also Meade v. Pacific Gamble Robinson Co., Del.Supr., 58 A.2d 415 (1948) (where the court considered the dissenting stockholders' good faith in connection with the allocation of In reje......
-
Consolidated Fisheries Co. v. Consolidated Solubles Co.
...be disturbed in the absence of a showing of abuse. Tri-Continental Corp. v. Battye, 31 Del.Ch. 523, 74 A.2d 71; Meade v. Pacific Gamble Robinson Co., 30 Del.Ch. 509, 58 A.2d 415. For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the court below will be reversed in part and the cause remanded for f......