Scrushy v. Tucker, 1050564.
Decision Date | 12 April 2006 |
Docket Number | 1050564. |
Citation | 955 So.2d 988 |
Parties | Richard M. SCRUSHY v. Wade TUCKER. |
Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
C. Neal Pope of Pope, McGlamry, Kilpatrick, Morrison & Norwood, LLP, Columbus, Georgia; and David G. Russell and J. Marbury Rainer of Parker, Hudson, Rainer & Dobbs, LLP, Atlanta, Georgia, for appellant.
John W. Haley, Ralph D. Cook, and Bruce J. McKee of Hare, Wynn, Newell & Newton, Birmingham; John Q. Somerville of Galloway & Somerville, Birmingham; and Frank P. DiPrima, Convent Station, New Jersey, for appellee.
Richard M. Scrushy, the defendant in this case, appealed from a partial summary judgment entered in favor of the plaintiff, Wade Tucker. The trial court made the judgment final pursuant to Rule 54(b), Ala. R. Civ. P. As a preliminary matter, Scrushy filed in this Court an emergency motion to stay execution of the judgment against him. This Court ordered execution of the judgment stayed pending further orders of the Court and, in addition, ordered the parties to show cause whether the partial summary judgment is appropriate for certification as a final appealable order pursuant to Rule 54(b). An adverse determination of that issue would eliminate the basis for enforcement of the judgment. After considering the parties' responses to the Court's show-cause order, we conclude that the trial court's Rule 54(b) certification was appropriate, and, accordingly, we vacate the stay of the execution of the judgment and allow the appeal in this case to proceed. We further conclude that the emergency motion to stay execution of the judgment is due to be denied as premature.
Wade Tucker, a shareholder of HealthSouth Corporation, filed a shareholder's derivative lawsuit on behalf of HealthSouth against Scrushy, the former chief executive officer for HealthSouth, and numerous other defendants. This case is one of three civil actions filed as a result of alleged fraudulent accounting practices at HealthSouth. The other two civil cases are pending in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama and in the Delaware Chancery Court. In addition, criminal charges were brought against Scrushy in the same federal court. All of the civil cases were stayed during the pendency of the criminal proceedings against Scrushy. After a lengthy trial, Scrushy was acquitted of the criminal charges against him.
Tucker's complaint alleges that Scrushy and others perpetrated an accounting fraud against HealthSouth, resulting in massive financial losses by HealthSouth and ultimately its shareholders. Tucker's complaint alleges claims of insider open-market trading, fraud, breach of fiduciary duty by corporate directors, professional negligence by auditors, aiding and abetting or civil conspiracy by an investment banking firm, and breach of contract. Tucker's complaint also alleges that Scrushy was unjustly enriched when he accepted bonuses as a result of overvalued financial statements that misstated HealthSouth's net income, which, Tucker alleges, was in violation of a contract between HealthSouth and Scrushy. As to the claim of unjust enrichment, Tucker's complaint alleges, in pertinent part, as follows:
(Emphasis added.)
After Scrushy was acquitted of the criminal charges, Tucker moved for a partial summary judgment in this case, seeking only restitution from Scrushy of bonuses he received from 1996 to 2002. The trial court's judgment summarizes the criminal activities affecting HealthSouth for the years 1996-2002 as follows:
Scrushy served as the Chief Executive Officer ("CEO") and as the Chairman of the Board of Directors of HealthSouth from 1984 until March 2003, except that he was not the CEO from August 27, 2002, to January 6, 2003. He was fired as HealthSouth's CEO on March 19, 2003, the day after the fraudulent activities were revealed, and he also resigned as Chairman of the Board of Directors. Scrushy signed the annual reports for HealthSouth on Forms 10K submitted to the Securities and Exchange Commission for the years 1996 through 2001, filed annual proxies on Forms 14A for the years 1996 through 2002, and ran for reelection as a director on these proxies. In each annual proxy on Form 14A from 1996 through 2002, HealthSouth disclosed the following criteria for the incentive bonuses it paid its executives:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
In re Gen. Motors LLC
...belongs to the plaintiff or holds money which was improperly paid to the defendant because of mistake or fraud." Scrushy v. Tucker , 955 So.2d 988, 1011 (Ala. 2006) (internal quotation marks and emphases omitted). "A defendant cannot be unjustly enriched if it does not have in its possessio......
-
Tucker v. Ernst & Young, LLP
...litigation; various aspects of the action have previously come before us. See Scrushy v. Tucker, 70 So.3d 289 (Ala.2011) ; Scrushy v. Tucker, 955 So.2d 988 (Ala.2006) ; and Ernst & Young, LLP v. Tucker, 940 So.2d 269 (Ala.2006).This particular appeal concerns only the claims against E & Y a......
-
Scrushy v. Tucker
...Background Certain aspects of this case have already come before us during this long and intricate litigation. See Scrushy v. Tucker, 955 So.2d 988 (Ala.2006) ( “ Scrushy,” sometimes referred to herein as “the bonus case”); and Ernst & Young, LLP v. Tucker, 940 So.2d 269 (Ala.2006) (“ Tucke......
-
Springhill Hosps. v. West
...underlying [a plaintiffs] single wrongful-death claim." Sledge v. IC Corp., 47 So.3d 243, 247 (Ala. 2010) (quoting Scrushy v. Tucker, 955 So.2d 988, 998 (Ala. 2006), quoting in turn Stearns v. Consolidated Mgmt., 747 F.2d 1105, 1109 (7th Cir. 1984)). Consequently, it is unsurprising that in......
-
Rule 54(b) Orders: Are They Losing Their Appeal?
...to at least one of these claims; and (3) a determination by the trial court that there is "no just reason for delay." Scrushy v. Tucker, 955 So.2d 988, 996 (Ala. 2006)(quoting Stearnes v. Consolidated Management, Inc., 747 F.2d 1105, 1108 (7th Cir. 1984). The first two issues-whether the ac......