Winkelman v. General Motors Corporation
Decision Date | 10 April 1942 |
Citation | 44 F. Supp. 960 |
Parties | WINKELMAN et al. v. GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION et al. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York |
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
Unger & Pollack, of New York City (Milton Pollack, of New York City, of counsel), for plaintiff Winkelman.
Charles Winkelman, of New York City (Arthur Berenson and Lawrence Berenson, both of New York City, of counsel), for plaintiffs Nishman and Schiff.
John Thomas Smith, of New York City (David Sher, of New York City, of counsel), for defendant General Motors Corporation and others.
Root, Clark, Buckner & Ballantine, of New York City, additional counsel for Donaldson Brown.
Davis, Polk, Wardwell, Gardiner & Reed, of New York City (John W. Davis, Ralph M. Carson, and S. Hazard Gillespie, Jr., all of New York City, of counsel), for defendant George Whitney and others.
This suit is a consolidation of several actions brought by minority stockholders against General Motors Corporation, its officers and directors, and certain other corporations to which reference will be made later. The actions are all derivative in their nature. The claims are asserted on behalf of General Motors Corporation, on the allegation that General Motors Corporation is not itself in a position to bring these actions, because the individual defendants constitute a large majority of the Board of Directors of General Motors. In August 1940 I ruled upon a motion of three of the defendants, Messrs. Prosser, Whitney and Morgan for a summary judgment. In my opinion on that motion (39 F.Supp. 826, 827) I gave a short resume of the history of this litigation as follows:
Thereafter and about August 15, 1940, Fannette S. Kahn sold her stock in General Motors. On motion of the defendants made at the trial, the Kahn action was severed from the consolidated cause, and after severance the Kahn complaint was dismissed by order of this Court, on the ground that she was no longer a stockholder of General Motors.
During the pendency of this suit as consolidated the plaintiff, Harry Jacobson, also sold his shares of General Motors and he is no longer a stockholder. By leave of Court, granted at the trial, another plaintiff, Charles Schiff, duly intervened in and continued the suit originally commenced by Jacobson in this Court.
The remaining plaintiffs own, since the dates given opposite their names, the following shares of stock in General Motors:
Charles Schiff —10 shares—acquired May 27, 1929 Augusta Winkelman —30 shares—acquired October 17, 1930 Daniel Nishman —50 shares—acquired February 19, 1932
No relief can be granted in this action for any transaction of the defendants prior to May 27, 1929. Rule 23 (b) Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S. C.A. following section 723c. Rule 81 (c) F.R.C.P. provides: "These rules apply to civil actions removed to the district courts of the United States from the state courts and govern all procedure after removal." Jacobson v. General Motors Corp., D.C., 22 F.Supp. 255. The requirements of Rule 23 (b) apply equally to intervening stockholders in a derivative action. Piccard v. Sperry Corp., D.C., 36 F.Supp. 1006, affirmed 2 Cir., 120 F.2d 328.
The various General Motors bonus plans are described in my opinion on the motion for summary judgment and they are also set forth in considerable detail in the findings of fact (Nos. 28 to 30 inc.).
In 1918 the General Motors bonus plan provided that 10% of the net income of General Motors Corporation, after deducting 6% (in 1922 increased to 7%) on the capital employed, would be set aside each year as a bonus fund to be distributed among the executives and employees of the company. For the calendar years 1923 to 1929 inclusive, one-half of this fund was paid in cash to the Managers Securities Company and was used by that company to pay for an interest of 30% in the General Motors Securities Company. The latter company owned 7,500,000 shares of General Motors stock so that the 30% interest was the equivalent of 2,250,000 shares of General Motors stock. Through the medium of these bonus payments to Managers Securities Company, about 70 of the chief executives and managers of General Motors Corporation, who were the stockholders of Managers Securities Company, were enabled to acquire an interest in this large block of stock at a very cheap price. Beginning with the calendar year 1930 the General Motors Management Corporation was used as a vehicle through which the principal executives and managers were enabled to acquire 1,375,000 shares of General Motors common stock from General Motors under the Management plan. The arrangement was similar to that used in the Managers Securities plan, but the number of participating executives was increased to 249. The August 1918 bonus plan, the Managers Securities Plan of 1923 and the General Motors Management Corporation plan of 1930 were all duly adopted by an overwhelming vote of the stockholders, are legal and valid. The various amendments to the plans adopted by the stockholders are likewise legal and valid. This includes the 1934 amendments to the General Motors Management plan.
The extent to which the principal executives, managers and employees shared in these bonus funds for the period from 1923 to 1936 is set forth in the report of Mr. Sloan to the Bonus and Salary Committee of the Board of Directors under date of March 22, 1938 (Ex. 44) from which the following is quoted:
The following table sets forth the amount of the total Bonus Fund and the number of participants in each year over the fourteen year period, 1923 through 1936:
Period of Managers Securities Period of Management Corporation Plan Plan Total 10% Number of Total 10% Number of Year Bonus Fund Participants Year Bonus Fund (a) Participants 1923 $ 3,782,600 679 1930 $ 9,870,600 2,027 1924 1,925,800 720 1931 3,965,700 1,479 1925 8,602,800 1,008 1932 -- -- 1926 16,548,200 1,584 1933 2,736,000 1,282 1927 20,976,100 2,077 1934 3,677,800 1,530 1928 24,817,200 2,570 1935 11,355,800 2,374 1929 20,363,700 2,889 1936 18,273,800(b) 9,534(b) Average Average Per Year Per Year for Seven for Seven Years $13,859,500...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
In re Caesars Palace Securities Litigation
...to support such a ruling. Pioche Mines Consolidated, Inc. v. Dolman, 333 F.2d 257, 265 (9th Cir. 1964); Winkelman v. General Motors Corp., 44 F.Supp. 960, 1022 (S.D.N.Y. 1942); 3B J. Moore, Federal Practice, ? 23.2.19, at 23.1-254 (2d ed. 1969). The Second Circuit, in Cathedral Estates, Inc......
-
Michelsen v. Penney
...lead to a different result. Cases such as Goldstein v. Tri-Continental Corp., 282 N.Y. 21, 24 N.E.2d 728, and Winkelman v. General Motors Corp., D.C.S.D.N.Y., 44 F.Supp. 960, 1018, are those where new and independent acts were asserted beyond the period of limitations. Harriss v. Tams, 258 ......
-
State ex rel. Weede v. Bechtel
...there is a very great change in the personnel of its shareholders even in a short period of time. Yet in Winkelman v. General Motors Corporation, D.C., 44 F.Supp. 960, 970, in a derivative suit there was a settlement with the complainant in which the corporation was paid $4,500,000 and coun......
-
Bookman v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.
...the ‘annual profits of the company,’ which I construe to mean from whatever source they are derived. The case of Winkelman v. General Motors Corporation, D.C., 44 F.Supp. 960, cited by the complainants, involved the consideration of three bonus plans of the General Motors Corporation. The c......