Weiss v. Atkins
Citation | 52 F. Supp. 418 |
Parties | WEISS et al. v. ATKINS et al. |
Decision Date | 09 November 1943 |
Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York |
Schwartz & Frohlich, of New York City (Herbert P. Jacoby, of New York City of counsel), for plaintiffs.
Donovan, Leisure, Newton & Lumbard, of New York City (Jerome H. Doran, of New York City, of counsel), for defendants Joseph P. Routh and others.
Motion by defendants, Joseph P. Routh, the Pittston Company and United States Distributing Corporation, for an order dismissing the complaint and directing summary judgment for the defendants.
The complaint alleges that the plaintiffs, as trustees under the last will and testament of Nathan Burkan, deceased, were at all the times referred to and are the holders of 500 shares of common stock of the United States Distributing Corporation; that the value of such shares was destroyed as a result of a merger of the United States Distributing Corporation and the Pittston Company, which merger was brought about by the individual defendants who were directors of these corporations; that by reason of the acts of the defendants, plaintiffs have been damaged in the value of their stock to the extent of $5,000, for which they demand judgment against the defendants.
The answer, in addition to denying material allegations of the complaint, sets up four affirmative defenses. This motion is founded upon the first and third affirmative defenses, namely—that the plaintiffs, as dissenting stockholders of the United States Distributing Corporation, a Virginia corporation, had available a remedy of appraisal under the statutes of Virginia, and that their failure to avail themselves of that remedy, which is exclusive, is a bar to this suit; also that the plaintiffs' failure to allege compliance with certain provisions of that statute, is a further bar to this action.
The Pittston Company, a Delaware corporation, and the United States Distributing Corporation, were merged on December 31, 1942.
The question presented is—whether or not the provisions made for dissenting stockholders by Section 3822 of the Virginia General Corporation Law provide an exclusive remedy. It is apparent that if the Virginia statute was not exclusive, the failure to give notice under that statute is not a good defense in this action.
Many of our states provide for statutory remedies by which dissenting stockholders may institute proceedings whereby the fair market value of their stock may be appraised, and compensation made therefor, but the states differ as to whether such remedy is exclusive. Fletcher on Corporations, Permanent Edition, Volume 15, pp. 242-3, referring to the statutory remedy says — "In some of the cases it has been held to be exclusive Citing Ohio, North Carolina and Maryland cases; but in most of the decisions the contrary view is held by the courts", and cites, among other cases holding to the contrary, Winfree v. Riverside Cotton Mills, 1912, 113 Va. 717, 75 S.E. 309.
Whether this Virginia statute is exclusive is a matter for determination by the Virginia courts. Wallace v. Motor Products Corporation, D.C., 15 F.2d 211; Koster v. Shenandoah Corporation, 258 App.Div. 1079, 18 N.Y.S.2d 38.
In Winfree v. Riverside Cotton Mills, 113 Va. 717, 75 S.E. 309, it was held that the merger statute was non-exclusive and did not prevent the maintenance of an action by a dissenting stockholder to recover the fair value of his stock, and said (75 S.E. 309, at page 312):
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Lachman v. Bell
...a court of equity to grant an injunction in advance of action or to grant a money award on equitable principles. See Weiss v. Atkins, 52 F.Supp. 418, 420 (S.D.N.Y.1943). Of course, actual resort to the appraisal procedure will limit the plaintiff to that procedure. See Loeb v. Schenley Indu......
-
O'Brien v. Virginia-Carolina Chemical Corp.
...Fundamental Changes,' 23 Law & Contemp. Prob. 307 (1958). Such matters also depend upon application of the Virginia law. Weiss v. Atkins, 52 F.Supp. 418 (S.D.N.Y.1943). In that connection it may be noted that the 1956 statute grants to dissenting stockholders in mergers or consolidations th......
-
Weiss v. Routh
...was raised in limine that § 3822 gave an exclusive remedy to dissatisfied shareholders; but Judge Goddard overruled it. Weiss v. Atkins, D.C., 52 F.Supp. 418. He held that Winfree v. Riverside Cotton Mills, 113 Va. 717, 75 S.E. 309, had decided, under an earlier act, that, although a dissen......
-
Adams Et At v. United States Distrib. Corp.
...stockholder in a merging corporation his original equitable remedy. Our attention has been directed to the decision in Weiss v. Atkins, D.C.S.D.N.Y., 52 F.Supp. 418. This was an action brought by the holders of common stock of United States Distributing Corporation against that corporation,......