Morad v. Coupounas
Decision Date | 21 July 1978 |
Parties | Joseph F. MORAD et al. v. George D. COUPOUNAS, etc., et al. S.C. 2818. |
Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Lawrence B. Clark and Virginia A. Emerson, Birmingham, for appellants.
Michael L. Edwards and Thomas J. Gallo, Birmingham, for appellees.
This is an appeal by Med-Lab, Inc. and its stockholders from a final decree finding them liable for misappropriation of the corporate opportunity of Bio-Lab, Inc., and ordering them to offer 30% Of the stock of Med-Lab to Coupounas. We affirm the order that Med-Lab is liable to Bio-Lab, but reverse and remand as to the remedy ordered by the trial court.
Bio-Lab, Inc. was formed in 1972 by Joseph Morad, Joseph Thomson, George Coupounas, and Dr. June Shaw for the purpose of establishing a plasmapheresis business. In this business, red blood cells are separated from the plasma of a paid blood donor and returned to the donor's circulatory system. The plasma is then sold to biological manufacturing companies. Initially, Bio-Lab opened an office in Birmingham with Morad, who had approximately 51/2 years experience in the plasmapheresis business, as president. Coupounas, a resident of Massachusetts, was to handle the books. The trial court specifically found that one of the purposes of the creation of Bio-Lab was to expand its operations by opening new offices in certain specified areas of the state, including Tuscaloosa.
By mid-1973, dissension had arisen among the directors and stockholders of Bio-Lab over Morad's compensation. Testimony and exhibits examined by the trial court indicated that at this same time discussions were held on expansion to Tuscaloosa. In June, 1973 Thomson purchased Dr. Shaw's stock so that the ownership of Bio-Lab was divided as follows: Morad, 42%; Thomson, 28%; Coupounas, 30%. Several months later Coupounas and Dr. Shaw were removed from the board of directors and replaced by Morad's wife, Pamela, and two other individuals.
In February, 1974, Morad, his wife, and Thomson incorporated another plasmapheresis business, Med-Lab, Inc., that began operating in Tuscaloosa in September of 1974. Since that time, Morad has served as president of both Bio-Lab and Med-Lab, working "full-time" for both corporations, according to the corporate tax returns. Both corporations are profitable. Morad's own testimony at trial revealed that Bio-Lab had lost donors to Med-Lab and that the two corporations sold 95% Of their products to the same three biological manufacturing corporations. Morad also testified that he jointly purchases insurance policies and supplies for Bio-Lab and Med-Lab, and uses the car supplied him by Bio-Lab on Med-Lab business. Orders for plasma received by Bio-Lab are sometimes filled by Med-Lab.
In May, 1976, Coupounas, eliminated from any interest in the Tuscaloosa venture, filed suit individually, and for the benefit of Bio-Lab, against Med-Lab, Morad, Morad's wife, and Thomson alleging a breach of fiduciary duty to Bio-Lab in the formation of Med-Lab. The complaint asked that a constructive trust be imposed on Med-Lab in favor of Bio-Lab, or alternatively, that defendants be required to offer Coupounas the same percentage of ownership in Med-Lab as he held in Bio-Lab, i. e., 30%. The trial court, hearing extensive testimony without a jury, rendered judgment for Coupounas and ordered the defendants to offer him 30% Of the stock of Med-Lab.
In Lagarde v. Anniston Lime & Stone Co., 126 Ala. 496, 28 So. 199 (1899), this Court first formulated its doctrine of corporate opportunity. There it was stated:
Moreover, the Delaware Supreme Court stated in more practical terms what the law demands of corporate officers or directors:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Grato v. Grato
...109, 376 A.2d 1192 (1977), (quoting Guth v. Loft, 23 Del.Ch. 255, 272, 5 A.2d 503, 511 (Sup.Ct.1939)) ]. See for example Morad v. Coupounas, 361 So.2d 6 (Ala.1978) (commencement by three shareholders of a competing business in an area into which the existing corporation would have expanded,......
-
Davis v. Dorsey
...that belongs to or should have been offered to the corporation. Banks v. Bryant, 497 So.2d 460, 463-65 (Ala.1986); Morad v. Coupounas, 361 So.2d 6, 8-9 (Ala.1978); see also 19 C.J.S. Corporations § 604; Thigpen, supra, § 10:17. In other words, the conflicting-interest transaction calls into......
-
Edwards v. Gramling Engineering Corp.
...the Law of Private Corporations § 861.1 at 282-83 (Perm ed. 1986 Rev.Vol.) (hereinafter Fletcher Cyc. Corp.). See, e.g., Morad v. Coupounas, 361 So.2d 6, 10 (Ala.1978), appeal after remand, 380 So.2d 800 (Ala.1980); Guth v. Loft, Inc., 23 Del.Ch. 255, 5 A.2d 503, 510 (1939); Mile-O-Mo Fishi......
-
Ellzey v. Fyr-Pruf, Inc., FYR-PRU
...to be a corporate one. See A. C. Petters Co. v. St. Cloud Enterprises, Inc., 301 Minn. 261, 222 N.W.2d 83 (1974); But see Morad v. Coupounas, 361 So.2d 6 (Ala.1978). We are satisfied the first is an essential element of a complainant's prima facie case: A fiduciary cannot be faulted for the......