Reeves v. Phillips
| Decision Date | 16 November 1976 |
| Citation | 54 A.D.2d 854,388 N.Y.S.2d 294 |
| Parties | James P. REEVES et al., Plaintiffs-Respondents, v. Thomas M. PHILLIPS, Defendant-Appellant, and Texas Gulf, Inc., et al., Defendants. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
J. P. Reeves, New York City, for plaintiffs-respondents.
P. B. K. Knake, Jr., New York City, for defendant-appellant.
Before MARKEWICH, J.P., and LUPIANO, SILVERMAN, LANE and YESAWICH, JJ.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County, entered May 5, 1976, denying defendant Thomas M. Phillips' motion to dismiss the complaint as against him for lack of jurisdiction over his person, unanimously modified, on the law and in the exercise of discretion to the extent of granting leave to said defendant to plead such lack of jurisdiction as an affirmative defense in his answer and, as so modified, affirmed, without costs and disbursements.
Plaintiffs are shareholders of defendant Texas Gulf, Inc., which was the object of a 'take-over' bid by a Canadian company. The gravamen of plaintiffs' verified third amended complaint is that the defendant corporation, its directors and officers acted in a manner inimical to the welfare of both the company and its shareholders in seeking to inhibit the take-over. Plaintiffs ultimately tendered their shares and received the original tender price. The damage alleged is that but for the actions of defendants, the class would have received payment for their tendered shares some two months earlier, and thus were deprived of the use of that money for that period. Accordingly, plaintiffs seek the appropriate amount of interest and punitive damages.
The action complained of is alleged to have been approved at a meeting of the defendant corporation's board of directors at the corporation's place of business in New York City where the board customarily and regularly meets. Defendant Thomas M. Phillips, a domiciliary and resident of Texas and admitted to the Texas Bar, was a member of the board and regularly attended at its meetings in New York City. Said defendant was ill in Texas at the time of the meeting complained of. However, it is not disputed that a board member at the meeting in New York telephoned the defendant and spoke with him concerning the response to be made to the take-over bid. The law firm of which defendant was a partner proceeded immediately to institute proceedings to impede the take-over, which proceedings were ultimately unsuccessful.
The complaint...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Gibbs v. Primelending
...292 (1969); Santa Fe Techs., Inc. v. Argus Networks, Inc., 131 N.M. 772, 42 P.3d 1221 (N.M.Ct.App.2001); Reeves v. Phillips, 54 A.D.2d 854, 388 N.Y.S.2d 294 (N.Y.App.Div.1976); Hammond v. Butler, Means, Evins & Brown, 300 S.C. 458, 388 S.E.2d 796 (1990); Chenault v. Walker, 36 S.W.3d 45 ...
-
Mackey v. Compass
...Ill.App.3d 978, 231 Ill.Dec. 55, 695 N.E.2d 572 (1998); Rudo v. Stubbs, 221 Ga. App. 702, 472 S.E.2d 515 (1996); Reeves v. Phillips, 54 A.D.2d 854, 388 N.Y.S.2d 294 (1976). Intermediate state appellate courts in California and Washington have rejected the conspiracy theory. See Hewitt v. He......
-
Small v. Lorillard Tobacco Co., Inc.
...146; Lamarr v. Klein, supra, 35 A.D.2d 248, 315 N.Y.S.2d 695, affd. 30 N.Y.2d 757, 333 N.Y.S.2d 421, 284 N.E.2d 576; Reeves v. Phillips, 54 A.D.2d 854, 388 N.Y.S.2d 294; Parke-Bernet Galleries v. Franklyn, 26 N.Y.2d 13, 308 N.Y.S.2d 337, 256 N.E.2d 506; De Nigris Assoc. v. Pacific Air Trans......
-
Norex Petroleum Ltd. v. Blavatnik, 650591/11.
...forum or utilized a New York bank account.The necessity of a connection to New York can further be seen in Reeves v. Phillips, 54 A.D.2d 854, 388 N.Y.S.2d 294 (1st Dep't 1976). In Reeves, a Texan co-conspirator was held to be subject to jurisdiction based on actions of co-conspirators becau......