You are here: / Corporation Law
,

Supreme Court Properly Denied a Motion to Approve a Settlement of a Proposed Non-Opt-Out Class Action—Shareholders Who Objected to the Settlement Were Entitled to Opt Out to Preserve Their Damages Claims

The Second Department, over an extensive dissent, determined Supreme Court had properly denied defendant’s motion, made jointly with the plaintiff, to approve a settlement of a proposed non-opt-out class action.  The majority concluded that shareholders who objected to the settlement were entitled to “opt out” to preserve their damages claims, as the Court of Appeals held in Matter of Colt Indus Shareholder Litig, 77 NY2d 185.  The Second Department explained the facts of the case as follows:

The instant appeal arises from a merger between the defendant On2 Technologies, Inc. (hereinafter On2), a publicly held Delaware corporation that developed video compression technology, and Google, Inc. (hereinafter Google), the global technology conglomerate specializing in Internet-related services. On August 4, 2009, On2 entered into a merger agreement with Google and Oxide, Inc., a subsidiary of Google, pursuant to which Google agreed to acquire each share of On2 common stock in exchange for 60 cents worth of Google Class A common stock. At that time, the proposed transaction was valued at approximately $106.5 million.

On August 7, 2009, the plaintiff, on behalf of himself and other similarly situated shareholders of On2, commenced the instant action, alleging that On2’s board of directors breached its fiduciary duties to the shareholders by, inter alia, failing to ensure that the shareholders would receive maximum value for their shares. Among other things, the plaintiff sought certification of a class to prosecute the matter as a class action, a declaration that the merger agreement was unlawful and unenforceable, rescission of the merger agreement, and injunctive relief. In August 2009, other shareholders of On2 (hereinafter collectively the Delaware plaintiffs) commenced similar actions in the Delaware Court of Chancery.

On February 22, 2010, the parties to this action, as well as the Delaware plaintiffs, proposed a settlement, pursuant to which they agreed that “solely for the purpose of effectuating the [s]ettlement,” the instant action “may be maintained . . . as a non-opt out class action.” The settlement provided, inter alia, for dismissal of the New York and Delaware actions in their entirety, with prejudice, and a release of “any and all” merger-related claims. The proposed settlement class encompassed “all persons and entities who held shares of the common stock of On2 . . . at any time between August 4, 2009 and February 19, 2010.”

Upon notice of the proposed settlement to all record holders of On2 common stock, 226 of those shareholders filed objections to the proposed settlement. The objectors contested the proposed settlement, claiming that it contained “an astonishingly broad” release that would “unlawfully restrict” and “unduly burden” the rights of shareholders to pursue their own individual claims for damages. Following a fairness hearing, the Supreme Court denied approval of the settlement because it did not afford nonresident class members the opportunity to opt out of the settlement in order to preserve their right to assert claims for damages. We affirm.  Jinnaras v Alfant, 2015 NY Slip Op 00335, 2nd Dept 1-14-15

 

, ,

Complaint by Members of a Congregation against the Congregation’s Board of Trustees Stemming from the Termination of a Rabbi Reinstated—Criteria for Motions to Dismiss, Statutory Interpretation Principles, Criteria for Stating a Defamation Cause of Action, and the Qualified Immunity Afforded Board Members by the Not-for-Profit Corporation Law Discussed in Some Depth

The Second Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Dickerson, reversed Supreme Court's dismissal of a complaint against the congregation's board of trustees by members of the congregation alleging causes of action stemming from the board's termination of a Rabbi. The Second Department held Supreme Court had not properly interpreted the Religious Corporations Law and the congregation's by-laws (Supreme Court had erroneously concluded the board had the power to act as it did under the statute and by-laws). The court further held the complaint sufficiently alleged malice in support of the defamation cause of action and sufficiently alleged the qualified immunity afforded board members by the Not-for-Profit Corporation Law may not apply.  The court discussed the criteria for a motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 3211, statutory interpretation principles, the elements of defamation, and the qualified immunity afforded board members by the Not-for-Profit-Corporation Law in some depth. Only a portion of the statutory-interpretation discussion is quoted here.  Supreme Court had interpreted the statutory phrase “The trustees … shall have no power to settle or remove or fix the salary of the minister…” to refer only to the trustees' actions concerning “the salary of the minister.”  The Second Department interpreted the phrase to mean the trustees have no power to “settle,” “remove,” or “fix the salary of” the minister:

We conclude that a more natural reading of the provision “[t]he trustees . . . shall have no power to settle or remove or fix the salary of the minister” (Religious Corporations Law § 200) establishes that “settle or remove” do not modify “the salary of the minister.” Rather, a more natural reading of this passage would be that the terms “settle,” “remove,” and “fix the salary of” all modify “the minister.” Under this reading, the trustees have no power to settle, or hire, the minister; they have no power to remove, or terminate the engagement of, the minister; and, finally, they have no power to fix the salary of the minister.

Under the Supreme Court's interpretation of the relevant language, the words “settle” and “fix” would have the same meaning, thus rendering one of these terms superfluous. ” Words are not to be rejected as superfluous where it is practicable to give each a distinct and separate meaning'” (…see McKinney's Cons Laws of NY, Book 1, Statutes § 231). Moreover, the Supreme Court's interpretation would lead to the somewhat unnatural provision for the “removal” of a clergyperson's salary. Furthermore, the use of the word “or” to separate each of the three terms suggests an intent to distinguish three distinct concepts.

Additionally, our interpretation of the statute, prohibiting the trustees from settling or removing the minister, or fixing his or her salary, is supported by the consistent, and quite similar, language set forth in Religious Corporations Law § 5. We note in this regard that ” [a] statute or legislative act is to be construed as a whole, and all parts of an act are to be read and construed together to determine the legislative intent'” … . Kamchi v Weissman, 2014 NY Slip Op 09109, 2nd Dept 12-31-14


, , , , ,

Privatization of a Mitchell-Lama Cooperative Housing Corporation Is Not a Taxable Conveyance Subject to the Real Property Transfer Tax

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Abdus-Salaam, determined that the reconstitution of a cooperative housing corporation [Trump Village], changing from a Mitchell-Lama corporation pursuant to the Private Housing Finance Law [PHFL] to a corporation pursuant to the Business Corporation Law, was not a conveyance of real property subject to the Real Property Transfer Tax [RPTT]. The NYC Department of Finance characterized the change as a taxable conveyance and was seeking over $21,000,000 in tax and penalties.  The Court of Appeals held that the amendment to the certificate of incorporation did not create a new corporation and that the amended certificate did not constitute a deed:

In support of their position that the privatization of Trump Village is a taxable event, defendants argue that an amendment to a certificate of incorporation is a “deed.” Defendants also assert that Trump Village is a new corporation and that there was actually a conveyance of real property to a different corporation, with Trump Village being both the grantor and grantee. However, defendants’ construction of the RPTT cannot be reconciled with the plain language of the statute. Furthermore, even if there were any ambiguities regarding the application of the RPTT to this situation, “doubts concerning [a taxing statute’s] scope and application are to be resolved in favor of the taxpayer”… . Thus, we reject defendants’ strained interpretation of section 11-2102(a) of the Administrative Code of the City of New York. …

Trump Village …, is the same corporation that was named in the original certificate of incorporation. The Business Corporation Law distinguishes between amending a certificate of incorporation (§ 801 et seq.) and formation of a corporation (§ 401 et seq.). Section 801 (14) provides that a certificate of incorporation may be amended “to strike out, change or add any provision . . . relating to the business of the corporation, its affairs, its right or powers . . . .”…

The PHFL provides that a Mitchell-Lama corporation “may be voluntarily dissolved” and “[t]hat upon dissolution, title to the project may be conveyed in fee to the owner or owners of its capital stock or to any corporation designated by it or them for that purpose, or the company may be reconstituted pursuant to appropriate laws relating to the formation and conduct of corporations”(PHFL § 35 [3][emphasis added]). Accordingly, there are two options for the process of privatization, and plaintiff chose the second option – – reconstitution through amendment of its certificate of incorporation [FN1]. Defendants posit that the legislature intended the word “reconstitute” to mean the same thing as “reincorporate.” However, as long ago as 1857, it was recognized that reincorporation “cannot be deemed the formation of a new corporation, but should be regarded as the continuation of the existing one”… . Trump Vil Section 3 v City of New York, 2014 NY Slip Op 08788, CtApp 12-17-14

 

, ,

Officer of Corporation Dissolved Pursuant to the Tax Law Is Personally Liable for Corporation’s Lease Obligations

The Second Department determined that defendant, an officer of the defendant dissolved corporation, was personally liable for the dissolved corporation’s lease obligations:

Pursuant to Tax Law § 203-a, the Secretary of State may dissolve a corporation by proclamation for the nonpayment of franchise taxes. Upon dissolution, the corporation’s legal existence terminates and it is prohibited from carrying on new business (see … Business Corporation Law § 1005[a][1]). It retains a limited de jure existence solely for the purpose of winding up its affairs (see … Business Corporation Law §§ 1005[a][1], 1006). A person who purports to act on behalf of a dissolved corporation is personally responsible for the obligations incurred … . Personal liability is not limited to the person who executes a contract on behalf of a dissolved corporation, but extends to the officers of the dissolved corporation … . 80-02 Leasehold LLC v CM Realty Holdings Corp, 2014 NY Slip Op 08805, 2nd Dept 12-17-14

 

, , , ,

There Is No “Imminent Litigation” Requirement for the Application of the “Common-Interest Privilege”—Documents Generated During Merger Negotiations Among Two Corporations and Their Counsel May, Therefore, Be Protected by the Privilege, Which Is an Exception to the Rule that the Presence of a Third Party at a Communication Between Counsel and Client Destroys the Privilege

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Moskowitz, determined that the “common-interest privilege” may apply to documents created during merger negotiations among two corporations and their counsel.  The court found there is no requirement that litigation be imminent for the application of the privilege.  The underlying lawsuit was brought by a financial-guaranty insurer (Ambac) which alleged it was fraudulently induced by Countrywide to insure residential mortgage backed securities. Ambac sought discovery of documents relating to a merger between Countrywide and Bank of America Corporation (the subject of secondary claims by Ambac) which, it was alleged, would demonstrate Bank of America Corporation was on notice about Countrywide's alleged fraud. The First Department held that the merger-related documents could be protected by the common-interest privilege and sent the matter back to the motion court to determine whether particular documents are protected:

As noted above, the common-interest privilege is an exception to the rule that the presence of a third party at a communication between counsel and client will render the communication non-confidential … . The doctrine, a limited exception to waiver of the attorney-client privilege, requires that: (1) the communication qualify for protection under the attorney-client privilege, and (2) the communication be made for the purpose of furthering a legal interest or strategy common to the parties … . This Court has never squarely decided whether there is a third requirement: that the communication must affect pending or reasonably anticipated litigation. We answer that question today in the negative. Ambac Assur Corp v Countrywide Home Loans Inc, 2014 NY Slip Op 08510, 1st Dept 12-4-14

 

,

Pleading Requirements for Piercing the Corporate Veil Described in Some Detail

The First Department determined questions of fact concerning whether the corporate veil should be pierced (alter-ego theory) had been raised.  The court explained the analytical criteria:

In order to state a claim for alter-ego liability plaintiff is generally required to allege “complete domination of the corporation [here PFLLC] in respect to the transaction attacked” and “that such domination was used to commit a fraud or wrong against the plaintiff which resulted in plaintiff's injury” … . Because a decision to pierce the corporate veil in any given instance will necessarily depend on the attendant facts and equities, there are no definitive rules governing the varying circumstances when this power may be exercised … .

If plaintiff prevails in proving that PFLLC owes it a debt …, the further allegations in the complaint are sufficiently pleaded to support plaintiff's claim that defendant is an alter-ego of PFLLC. The complaint asserts that with respect to the transaction at issue, defendant dominated and controlled the negotiations on behalf of PFLLC and actually provided the erroneous information which persuaded plaintiff to enter into the agreement. The allegations … sufficiently frame factual issues about whether defendant, as the parent company of PFLLC, commingled funds and disregarded corporate formalities … .

In addition, the allegations that defendant, through its domination of PFLLC, misrepresented the value of the assets sold and then caused PFLLC to become judgment proof, are also sufficient to support claims that defendant perpetrated a wrong or injustice against plaintiff, thus warranting intervention by a court of equity … . Wrongdoing in this context does not necessarily require allegations of actual fraud. While fraud certainly satisfies the wrongdoing requirement, other claims of inequity or malfeasance will also suffice … . Allegations that corporate funds were purposefully diverted to make it judgment proof or that a corporation was dissolved without making appropriate reserves for contingent liabilities are sufficient to satisfy the pleading requirement of wrongdoing which is necessary to pierce the corporate veil on an alter-ego theory … . Baby Phat Holding Co LLC v Kellwood Co, 2014 NY Slip Op 08364, 1st Dept 12-2-14

 

, , ,

Corporation Created by Seneca Nation to Operate a Golf Course Was Not Entitled to Sovereign Immunity—Contractor Hired to Build the Course Can Sue to Foreclose a Mechanic’s Lien

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Pigott, over a dissent, determined that a corporation created by the Seneca Nation for the operation of a golf course (Lewiston Golf) was not entitled to sovereign immunity and, therefore, could be sued by the company with which the Seneca Nation contracted to build the golf course.  The contractor brought suit to foreclose on a mechanic’s lien:

Indian tribes possess the common law immunity from suit traditionally enjoyed by sovereign powers, unless waived. In Matter of Ransom, we set out several factors for courts to [*6]use to determine whether an entity, such as a corporation or agency, that is affiliated with an Indian tribe has the right to claim sovereign immunity against suit.

“Although no set formula is dispositive, in determining whether a particular tribal organization is an ‘arm’ of the tribe entitled to share the tribe’s immunity from suit, courts generally consider such factors as whether: [1] the entity is organized under the tribe’s laws or constitution rather than Federal law; [2] the organization’s purposes are similar to or serve those of the tribal government; [3] the organization’s governing body is comprised mainly of tribal officials; [4] the tribe has legal title or ownership of property used by the organization; [5] tribal officials exercise control over the administration or accounting activities of the organization; and [6] the tribe’s governing body has power to dismiss members of the organization’s governing body. More importantly, courts will consider whether [7] the corporate entity generates its own revenue, whether [8] a suit against the corporation will impact the tribe’s fiscal resources, and whether [9] the subentity has the power to bind or obligate the funds of the tribe. The vulnerability of the tribe’s coffers in defending a suit against the subentity indicates that the real party in interest is the tribe.” (Ransom, 86 NY2d at 559-560 [internal quotation marks, citations, and square brackets omitted; numbering added].) * * *

…[T]he primary purpose of creating the golf course in Lewiston was to act as a regional economic engine and thereby serve the profit-making interests of the Seneca Nation’s casino operations in the area. While this may result in more funds for government projects on the Seneca Nation’s reservations and elsewhere that benefit members of the tribe, … the purposes of Lewiston Golf were sufficiently different from tribal goals that they militate against Lewiston Golf’s claim of sovereign immunity. However, the purposes factor of Ransom is not determinative… . While some of the remaining Ransom factors favor the conclusion that Lewiston Golf is protected by sovereign immunity, the most important ones strongly support the opposite conclusion. Sue/Perior Concrete & Paving Inc v Corporation, 2014 NY Slip Op 08218, CtApp 11-25-14

 

,

Re: Breach of Fiduciary Duty Claims Against the Directors of a Corporation, the Plaintiffs Failed to Rebut the Presumptions of Loyalty, Prudence and Good Faith Under the Business Judgment Rule

In finding that the breach of fiduciary duty claims against the directors of a corporation were properly dismissed, the First Department explained the relevant analysis:

The court, after citing and applying the correct standard of review …, properly dismissed the breach of fiduciary duty claims against [defendant-directors of the corporation] …, due to plaintiffs’ failure to rebut the presumptions of loyalty, prudence and good faith under the business judgment rule … . In particular, plaintiffs failed to allege facts that support a finding of interest or lack of independence by a majority of the board members … . Giuliano v Gawrylewski, 2014 NY Slip Op 07941, 1st Dept 11-18-14

 

,

Individual Defendants’ Ties to New York, Including Business Activities in New York, Were Not Sufficient to Afford New York Jurisdiction, Pursuant to CPLR 302, Over a Lawsuit Stemming from a Personal Injury in New Jersey—CPLR 301, Which Affords New York Courts Jurisdiction Over Corporations Doing Business in New York, Does Not Extend to Individuals Doing Business in New York

The Second Department reversed Supreme Court’s finding that New York courts had jurisdiction over plaintiff’s personal injury action.  Plaintiff was injured by an allegedly defective saw provided by the defendants while doing work for defendants at the defendants’ home in New Jersey.  Jurisdiction pursuant to CPLR 302 was lacking because there was no real connection between the the defendants’ activities in New York (they ran a church in New York) and the personal injury action.  Jurisdiction pursuant to CPLR 301 was lacking because CPLR 301 does not apply to individuals, as opposed to corporations, doing business in New York:

In order to determine whether personal jurisdiction exists under CPLR 302(a)(1), a court must determine (1) whether the defendant transacted business in New York and, if so, (2) whether the cause of action asserted arose from that transaction … .

The Court of Appeals has interpreted the second prong of the jurisdictional inquiry to require that, in light of all the circumstances, there must be an “articulable nexus” … , between a defendant’s in-state activity and the claim asserted … . Although “causation is not required,” the Court of Appeals has stated that “at a minimum [there must be] a relatedness between the transaction and the legal claim such that the latter is not completely unmoored from the former” … . “[W]here at least one element arises from the New York contacts, the relationship between the business transaction and the claim asserted supports specific jurisdiction under the statute” … .

Here, the relationship between the causes of action asserted in the complaint and the [defendants’] activities within New York were too insubstantial to warrant a New York court’s exercise of personal jurisdiction over them pursuant to CPLR 302(a)(1). * * *

In contrast to the common-law approach to corporations, the common law, as developed through case law predating the enactment of CPLR 301, did not include any recognition of general jurisdiction over an individual based upon that individual’s cumulative business activities within the State … . Since the enactment of CPLR 301 did not expand the scope of the existing jurisdictional authority of the courts of the State of New York, that section does not permit the application of the “doing business” test to individual defendants … . Accordingly, contrary to the plaintiff’s contention, since the [defendants] were served with process in New Jersey, the Supreme Court was not authorized to exercise personal jurisdiction over them pursuant to CPLR 301, based on their cumulative individual business activities within the State. Pichardo v Zayas, 2014 NY Slip Op 07639, 2nd Dept 11-12-14

 

To Maintain Standing to Bring a Derivative Action Against a Not-for-Profit Corporation At Least Five Percent of the Members Must Be Plaintiffs at All Times As the Suit Progresses

The Third Department determined that in order to maintain standing for a derivative action against a not-for-profit corporation the plaintiffs must constitute five percent of the members at all times. In this case, the five percent requirement was met when lawsuit began but subsequently a member left and the five percent requirement was thereby no longer met:

N-PCL 623 is derived from the Business Corporation Law, but it is different in that it does not require ownership at the time of the transaction and does not allow plaintiffs to post security for expenses if they do not meet the five percent requirement (compare N-PCL 623, with Business Corporation Law §§ 626, 627). The requirement that plaintiffs in a derivative action against a not-for-profit corporation consist of at least five percent of any class of members was “necessitated by the elimination from the new law of the ‘security for expenses’ provision embodied in [Business Corporation Law § 627]” (Mem of Joint Legislative Committee to Study Revision of Corporation Laws, 1969 McKinney’s Session Laws of NY at 2485; see L 1969, ch 1066; see also E. Lisk Wyckoff, Jr., Practice Commentaries, McKinney’s Cons Laws of NY, Book 37, N-PCL 623). Because the N-PCL specifically eliminated the ability of less than five percent of shareholders to continue an action by posting security for expenses, we conclude that the ownership requirement of N-PCL 623 (a) must continue throughout the action in order to maintain standing … . Pall v McKenzie Homeowners’ Assn Inc, 2014 NY Slip Op 07392, 3rd Dept 10-3014

 

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy