Baron v. Allied Artists Pictures Corporation
337 A.2d 653, 1975 Del. Ch. LEXIS 186 (1975)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A board of directors, including one elected by preferred shareholders vested with voting control due to dividend arrearages, retains the discretion under the business judgment rule to not declare dividends if it prudently determines that the funds are necessary for the business. A court will only compel the payment of such dividends upon a showing of fraud or gross abuse of discretion, not merely because funds are legally available.
Facts:
- Allied Artists Pictures Corporation's (Allied) certificate of incorporation provided that if the company was in arrears on six or more quarterly dividends for its preferred stock, the preferred shareholders had the right to elect a majority of the board of directors.
- After March 1963, Allied suffered financial losses and stopped paying dividends on its preferred stock.
- By September 1964, the dividend arrearages triggered the charter provision, and preferred shareholders began electing a majority of the board.
- Kalvex, Inc. owned 52% of Allied's preferred stock, giving it control of Allied's board, while owning less than 1% of the common stock.
- Several directors and officers of Allied, including its president Emanual Wolf, also held senior positions at Kalvex.
- From 1964 until shortly before the lawsuit, Allied was under an agreement with the IRS to pay off a $1.4 million tax deficiency, which restricted dividend payments without IRS consent.
- Despite some profitable years where funds were legally available, the board chose to reinvest earnings into producing films like "Cabaret" and "Papillon" rather than pay the dividend arrearages.
- By the 1974 election, the dividend arrearages exceeded $280,000, but the company's financial position had significantly improved due to the success of its recent films.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiff, a common stockholder of Allied Artists Pictures Corporation, filed a lawsuit in the Delaware Court of Chancery to have the 1973 election of directors declared illegal.
- Plaintiff subsequently filed a second action seeking the same relief regarding the 1974 election of directors.
- The Court of Chancery consolidated the two cases for decision.
- Both plaintiff and defendants filed cross-motions for summary judgment in the Court of Chancery.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a board of directors elected by preferred shareholders, whose voting control exists because of dividend arrearages, breach its fiduciary duty by refusing to pay the dividends and return control to the common shareholders, when funds are legally available but the board deems it prudent for business reasons to use the funds elsewhere?
Opinions:
Majority - Brown, Vice Chancellor
No. A board of directors' refusal to pay dividend arrearages, even when such nonpayment perpetuates their control, is protected by the business judgment rule absent fraud or a gross abuse of discretion. The rights of preferred stockholders are contractual, and Allied's charter grants the board discretion to declare dividends 'as and when declared by the Board of Directors, out of funds legally available.' This language does not create a mandatory duty to pay dividends as soon as a surplus exists. The court reasoned that directors owe a fiduciary duty to the entire corporation, not just the class of shareholders that elected them, and this includes making prudent decisions for the long-term health of the business. The decision to reinvest capital into successful film productions, especially given the company's volatile financial history and its outstanding debt to the IRS, was a legitimate exercise of business judgment. The court declined to create a special rule requiring a preferred-shareholder-elected board to prioritize dividend payments over other corporate needs simply to return control to common stockholders, distinguishing this situation from cases involving active manipulation of corporate machinery to entrench management. However, the court cautioned that with the company's improved financial state, an indefinite refusal to pay the arrearages could constitute an abuse of discretion in the future.
Analysis:
This case strongly affirms the power of the business judgment rule, extending its protection to a board's dividend policy even in a situation with a clear conflict of interest where the decision directly perpetuates the board's own control. It establishes that a contractual, control-shifting provision in a corporate charter does not override the board's fundamental discretionary authority over corporate finances. The ruling clarifies that plaintiffs challenging such a board's inaction cannot simply point to available funds; they must meet the high evidentiary burden of proving fraud or a gross abuse of discretion. This decision provides a significant shield for directors of financially distressed companies who prioritize reinvestment and recovery over satisfying dividend arrearages, even when control of the corporation is at stake.
