Stanton v. RICH BAKER BERMAN & CO., PA
| Decision Date | 30 January 1995 |
| Docket Number | Civ. A. No. 94-2619 (AJL). |
| Citation | 876 F. Supp. 1373 |
| Parties | Robert N. STANTON, Plaintiff, v. RICH BAKER BERMAN & CO., P.A., Rosenberg Druker & Company, P.A., RD/RBB Certified Public Accountants, P.A., Alvin P. Levine, Barry D. Kopp, Nicholas Truglio, Frank S. LaForgia, Kalman A. Barson, Aaron A. Rich, Howard Baker and Kenneth A. Berman, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of New Jersey |
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
Robert N. Stanton, pro se plaintiff.
Richard J. Schachter, Schachter, Trombadore, Offen, Stanton & Pavics, P.A., Somerville, NJ, for defendants.
This is an action by pro se plaintiff Robert N. Stanton ("Stanton") against defendants Rich Baker Berman & Co., P.A. ("RBB"), Rosenberg Druker & Company, P.A. ("RD"), RD/RBB Certified Public Accountants, P.A. ("RD/RBB"), Alvin P. Levine ("Levine"), Barry D. Kopp ("Kopp"), Nicholas Truglio ("Truglio"), Frank S. LaForgia ("LaForgia"), Kalman A. Barson ("Barson"), Aaron A. Rich ("Rich"), Howard Baker ("Baker") and Kenneth A. Berman ("Berman") (collectively, the "Defendants") for recovery of fees under two finder's agreements. The legal theories pursuant to which recovery is sought include breach of contract, third party beneficiary, Section 14A:10-6(e) of the New Jersey Business Corporation Act,1 quantum meruit, unjust enrichment, tortious interference and fraud. See Complaint, filed 2 June 1994 (the "Complaint"). Jurisdiction is alleged pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Id., ¶ 7.
Currently before the court is the motion for partial summary judgment by Stanton on Claims One through Four in the Complaint and the cross-motion by Defendants for partial judgment contending the two finder's agreements they signed are void as against public policy.2 For the reasons set forth below, the motion by Stanton for partial summary judgment is granted; the cross-motion by Defendants for partial summary judgment is denied.
Stanton is a citizen of the state of New York. Complaint, ¶ 1; Defendants' 12(G) Statement, ¶ 1. RBB and RD were professional corporations organized under the laws of the state of New Jersey with their principal places of business in New Jersey. Complaint, ¶¶ 2-3; Defendants' 12(G) Statement, ¶ 5. RD/RBB is a professional corporation organized under the laws of the state of New Jersey. Complaint, ¶ 4; Defendants' 12(G) Statement, ¶ 5.
Rich, Baker and Berman are citizens of the state of New Jersey and were stockholders in RBB. Complaint, ¶ 5; Defendants' 12(G) Statement, ¶¶ 2, 5. Levine, Kopp, Truglio, LaForgia and Barson are citizens of the state of New Jersey and were stockholders in RD. Complaint, ¶ 6; Defendants' 12(G) Statement, ¶¶ 5, 8.
In or about January 1991, RBB and its stockholders Rich, Baker and Berman entered into a written finder's agreement (the "RBB Finder's Agreement"), see Exhibit A to the Complaint, under which Stanton was entitled to a finder's fee in the event RBB entered into a transaction with another firm introduced by Stanton. Stanton Aff., ¶ 11; Defendants' 12(G) Statement, ¶ 6. A transaction is defined in the RBB Finder's Agreement as a purchase, sale, merger or employment. RBB Finder's Agreement, ¶ 10.
In or about July or August of 1992, Stanton entered into an identical finder's agreement with RD (the "RD Finder's Agreement"), see Exhibit B to the Complaint (the RBB Finder's Agreement and the RD Finder's Agreement, collectively are referred to as the "Agreements"). Stanton Aff., ¶ 12; Defendants' 12(G) Statement, ¶ 8.
The Agreements provide:
8. Finder's Fee from Other Party. RBB or RD understand that Stanton may, in addition, receive compensation from the other party to the transaction. RBB or RD has no objection. RBB or RD agree not to assist any person defined in paragraph ten as any person, firm, partnership, corporation or other entity to avoid the payment to Stanton of any finder's fee.
RBB Finder's Agreement, ¶ 8; RD Finder's Agreement, ¶ 8. The RBB Finder's Agreement was modified by a contemporaneous letter, dated 21 January 1994 (the "21 January Letter"), see Exhibit A to the Complaint,3 which provides: "Stanton will not receive a finder's fee from the other party that is different from the finder's fee RBB is paying Stanton."
The Agreements are non-exclusive: "RBB and RD shall be free to solicit transactions on their own without liability or obligation to Stanton." RBB Finder's Agreement, ¶ 7; RD Finder's Agreement, ¶ 7. Finally, according to the Agreements they are to be "enforced in accordance with the laws of New York State." RBB Finder's Agreement, ¶ 14; RD Finder's Agreement, ¶ 14.
On or about 18 August 1992, Stanton advised RD and RBB that they were potential candidates for a transaction. Stanton Aff., ¶ 16; Defendants' 12(G) statement, ¶ 14. The Defendants contend RD, already knew that RBB was seeking to be acquired. Defendants' 12(G) Statement, ¶ 14. Stanton arranged an introductory meeting of RD and RBB on or about 21 August 1992. Stanton Aff., ¶ 16.
Prior to 5 March 1994, RD reincorporated itself as RD/RBB. Defendants' 12(G) Statement, ¶ 15. On or about 5 March 1994, RBB and RD/RBB entered into a transaction (the "Transaction") evidenced by a document entitled "Plan and Agreement of Merger" (the "Merger Agreement"), see Exhibit 7 to the Stanton Aff., providing for the merger of 100% of RBB into RD/RBB. Id. at 4; Defendants' 12(G) Statement, ¶ 16.
The Merger Agreement provides:
Merger Agreement at 4-6 (emphasis in original).
On or about 28 March 1994, pursuant to the terms of the Merger Agreement, the Defendants filed a Certificate of Merger (the "Certificate of Merger"), see Exhibit 11 to the Stanton Aff., with the Department of State of the State of New Jersey. Defendants' 12(G) Statement, ¶ 19. The Certificate of Merger states: "On the effective date of the merger, the separate existence of RBB shall cease and RD/RBB ... shall become the owner, without other transfer, of all of the rights and property of RBB and RD/RBB ... shall become subject to all the debts and liabilities of ... RBB in the same manner as if RD/RBB itself had incurred them." Certificate of Merger, ¶ 2.B.i.
Defendants' 12(G) Statement, ¶ 21.
Additionally, the Merger Agreement provides: "The Board of Directors and stockholders of RD/RBB and RBB, respectively, have approved and adopted the Merger Agreement as a Plan of Reorganization within the provisions of Section 368(a)(1)(A) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended...." Merger Agreement at 4. Section 368(a)(1)(A) of the Internal Revenue Code defines reorganization as "a statutory merger or consolidation...." 26 U.S.C. § 368(a)(1)(A).
As the Defendants explain, according to the Agreements, Stanton's "compensation in the event of merger is based upon the smaller practice's gross fees ... which in this case are those of RBB and equal to $2,500,600." Defendants' 12(G) Statement, ¶ 25. Under the formula outlined in the Agreements, Stanton's compensation in the event of a merger between RD and RBB would equal $105,000.00. Id., ¶ 26; Stanton Aff., ¶ 30. Of this amount, 20 percent, or $21,000.00, was due at closing and the balance in 48 monthly installments of $1,750.00 beginning 1 April 1994.5 Defendants' 12(G) Statement, ¶ 26; Stanton Aff., ¶ 30.
On 8 March 1994, Stanton sent both RBB and RD a bill for $21,000.00. Defendants' 12(G) Statement, ¶ 28. LaForgia, by letter dated 11 March 1994 (the "LaForgia Letter"), see Exhibit 5 to the Stanton Aff., explained the Defendants' contention that the Transaction was a merger as to thirteen percent of RBB's practice and a purchase as to the remaining eighty-seven percent.6 Id.; Defendants' 12(G) Statement, ¶ 29.
According to the Defendants: "Although the form of the Transaction ... was that of a statutory merger, the Transaction in substance was a purchase by RD/RBB of the interests of ... Rich, Baker, and Berman, but was a merger of the interests of Carl Schwartz "Schwartz" and Steven...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Seidenberg v. Mutual Life Ins. Co. of New York
...parties initially entered into. Kampf v. Franklin Life Ins. Co., 33 N.J. 36, 43, 161 A.2d 717 (1960); Stanton v. Rich Baker Berman & Co., P.A., 876 F.Supp. 1373, 1384 & n. 12 (D.N.J.1995) (citations omitted). A court may not rewrite the terms of a policy or give them a construction in confl......
-
In re Cendant Corp. Securities Litigation, 98-CV-1664(WHW).
...state has more significant connections with the transactions at issue and parties involved in the case. See Stanton v. Rich Baker Berman & Co., 876 F.Supp. 1373, 1382 (D.N.J.1995). "The court determines first the governmental policies evidenced by the laws of the related jurisdiction and se......
-
In re Cendant Corporation Securities Litigation
...state has more significant connections with the transactions at issue and parties involved in the case. See Stanton v. Rich Baker Berman & Co., 876 F. Supp. 1373, 1382 (D.N.J. 1995). "The court determines first the governmental policies evidenced by the laws of the related jurisdiction and ......
-
In re Route One West Windsor Ltd. Partnership
...have agreed to be governed by the law of a particular state, that choice will generally be upheld. Stanton v. Rich Baker Berman & Co., P.A., 876 F.Supp. 1373, 1381 (D.N.J.1995) (citing cases); Instructional Systems, Inc. v. Computer Curriculum Corp. 130 N.J. 324, 341, 614 A.2d 124 (1992). H......