Gallagher v. Lambert
74 N.Y.2d 562, 549 N.E.2d 136, 549 N.Y.S.2d 945 (1989)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
In a close corporation, an explicit stock repurchase agreement tied to at-will employment termination will generally be enforced according to its plain terms, and a minority shareholder cannot assert a breach of fiduciary duty by the majority shareholders to obtain a higher price for their shares if their at-will employment termination is not challenged.
Facts:
- James Gallagher was employed by Eastdil Realty from 1968 to 1973, then returned in 1976 as a broker, officer, and director, also serving as president and CEO of Eastdil Advisors, Inc.
- In 1981, Eastdil offered executive employees, including Gallagher, an opportunity to purchase Class B nonvoting stock subject to a mandatory buy-back provision.
- The 1981 buy-back provision stipulated that upon "voluntary resignation or other termination" prior to January 31, 1985, an employee would be required to return the stock for book value, with a higher formula based on company earnings taking effect after that date.
- Gallagher accepted the offer and its terms, initially purchasing 4% of the stock.
- In mid-1983, Eastdil underwent a recapitalization, and in summer 1984, Gallagher received 8.5% of Eastdil's stock, becoming the third largest shareholder, and executed an amended stockholders' agreement that maintained the same buy-back terms and deadlines.
- On January 10, 1985, just 21 days before the higher stock valuation formula was to become effective, Eastdil Realty fired Gallagher.
- Gallagher demanded payment for his shares based on the post-January 31, 1985 buy-back formula (estimated around $3,000,000), but Eastdil refused, offering the contractually specified book value (estimated around $89,000).
Procedural Posture:
- James Gallagher sued Eastdil Realty, asserting eight causes of action, including claims for breach of fiduciary duty of good faith and fair dealing.
- Defendants Eastdil Realty moved for summary judgment on the claims for breach of fiduciary duty.
- The Supreme Court (trial court) denied defendants' motion for summary judgment, stating that factual issues existed relating to defendants' motive in firing Gallagher.
- The Appellate Division reversed the Supreme Court's order, dismissed the fiduciary duty claims, and ordered payment for Gallagher's shares at book value.
- The Appellate Division then granted leave to appeal and certified the following question to the New York Court of Appeals: "Was the order of this Court, which modified the order of the Supreme Court, properly made?"
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 majority shareholder in a close corporation breach a fiduciary duty to a minority shareholder-employee by terminating their at-will employment just before a higher stock buy-back price becomes effective, thereby entitling the former employee to the higher repurchase price despite a clear contractual provision specifying a lower price for pre-effective date termination?
Opinions:
Majority - Bellacosa, J.
No, the causes of action seeking a higher repurchase price based on an alleged breach of fiduciary duty should not be reinstated. The court found there was no cognizable breach of any fiduciary duty owed to Gallagher under the plain terms of the parties’ repurchase agreement. Gallagher got what he bargained for in a negotiated written contract with a clear buy-back provision. The court affirmed that courts should not interfere with the operation of such an agreement. Citing Ingle v Glamore Motor Sales, the court reiterated that a minority shareholder in a close corporation who contractually agrees to a repurchase upon termination of employment, by that status alone, acquires no right against at-will discharge. The court emphasized the need to distinguish a corporation's duty to a minority shareholder as a shareholder from any duty it might owe them as an employee, but concluded the buy-back provision linked these aspects as to timing and consequences. Such agreements are designed to keep stock control within the remaining owners and define the scope of fiduciary duty, providing certainty. Undoing these agreements based on allegations of unfairness would destroy their purpose of providing a certain formula for stock valuation and would hinder the employer's contractual rights.
Dissenting - Kaye, J.
Yes, the causes of action for breach of fiduciary duty should be reinstated. The dissent argued that the majority unnecessarily weakens traditional protections for minority shareholders in close corporations by extending the at-will employment rationale. This case, unlike Ingle, explicitly involves an alleged breach of fiduciary duty of fair dealing existing independently of employment and owed to Gallagher as a shareholder, contending that the corporation undervalued his shares. The dissent highlighted that Gallagher claims he was fired for the sole purpose of recapturing his shares at an unfairly low price before the "golden handcuffs" agreement became effective. Controlling shareholders in a close corporation owe minority owners an "extreme measure of candor, unselfishness and good faith" (Kavanaugh v Kavanaugh Knitting Co.). Actions taken solely for self-aggrandizement, like reducing profit-sharers to increase individual wealth, are not legitimate corporate interests (Alpert v 28 Williams St. Corp.). The general language of the repurchase clause should not be interpreted as Gallagher knowingly waiving substantial rights as a minority shareholder. The dissent asserted that an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing should exist in the shareholders’ agreement, even if not in the at-will employment, to ensure the employee receives the benefits promised for performance, especially when provisions create "golden handcuffs" designed to induce continued service.
Concurring - Hancock, Jr., J.
Yes, the complaint should be dismissed. Justice Hancock concurred with the majority, stating that the holding and analysis from this court's earlier decision in Ingle v Glamore Motor Sales directly require the dismissal of the claims asserted in this case.
Analysis:
This case reinforces the New York Court of Appeals' strong preference for enforcing clear contractual provisions, even in the context of close corporations where elevated fiduciary duties usually apply. It clarifies that a minority shareholder's status does not automatically shield them from the consequences of an unambiguous stock buy-back agreement tied to at-will employment, even if the termination appears motivated by stock valuation. The decision underscores the importance of precisely drafted agreements in close corporations to define the scope of obligations and limit future litigation over 'fair value' or alleged bad faith. For future cases, this means that absent express contractual language protecting against such a scenario, shareholders in similar positions will likely find it difficult to challenge an employer's decision to terminate employment and repurchase stock at a contractually specified lower price.
