Guth v. Loft, Inc.
23 Del. Ch. 255, 1939 Del. LEXIS 13, 5 A.2d 503 (1939)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A corporate officer or director may not take a business opportunity for their own if the opportunity is in the corporation's line of business, the corporation is financially able to undertake it, the corporation has an interest or reasonable expectancy in it, and the officer would be brought into conflict with the corporation.
Facts:
- Loft, Inc. was a large company that manufactured and sold candy, syrups, and beverages through its chain of retail stores, which included soda fountains.
- Charles Guth was the president and a director of Loft, Inc., and he exercised dominant control over the company.
- Dissatisfied with the price of Coca-Cola syrup, Guth decided that Loft should stop selling Coca-Cola and find a replacement cola beverage for its stores.
- At the same time, the company that owned the Pepsi-Cola trademark and formula went bankrupt, and the opportunity to acquire these assets became available.
- Guth was approached with the opportunity to purchase the Pepsi-Cola assets, which he did for himself through a new corporation he formed.
- Guth had little of his own money invested in the new Pepsi venture and used Loft's funds, credit, facilities, materials, and employees to develop the business.
- Loft's soda fountains became the primary market for Pepsi-Cola syrup, which was essential for launching the new company.
- Guth did not formally offer the Pepsi-Cola opportunity to Loft's board of directors before taking it for himself.
Procedural Posture:
- Loft, Inc. sued Charles Guth in the Delaware Court of Chancery (a court of first instance for equity claims).
- The Chancellor found in favor of Loft, Inc., issuing a decree that Guth was estopped from denying that he had acquired the Pepsi-Cola opportunity on Loft's behalf.
- The decree ordered Guth to transfer all of his and his family's shares in the Pepsi-Cola company to Loft, Inc.
- Guth appealed the Chancellor's decree to the Supreme Court of Delaware, where he was the appellant and Loft, Inc. was the appellee.
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 corporate officer breach their fiduciary duty of loyalty by personally acquiring and developing a business opportunity that is in the corporation's line of business, which the corporation is financially and practically equipped to pursue, and in which the corporation has a reasonable interest or expectancy?
Opinions:
Majority - Layton, Chief Justice
Yes. A corporate officer breaches their fiduciary duty of loyalty by taking a business opportunity that rightfully belongs to the corporation. The court established that corporate officers and directors stand in a fiduciary relation to their corporation and are required to show undivided and unselfish loyalty. The Pepsi-Cola opportunity belonged to Loft because: (1) The manufacture of syrup was squarely in Loft's 'line of business'; (2) Loft had a clear interest and expectancy in securing a reliable and profitable cola syrup, a need Guth himself created by deciding to drop Coca-Cola; (3) Loft was financially able to undertake the venture, as demonstrated by Guth's extensive use of Loft's own resources to fund it. By acquiring Pepsi for himself, Guth created a direct conflict of interest, placing himself as both the supplier (as Pepsi's owner) and the buyer (as Loft's president), thereby violating the high standard of loyalty required of a fiduciary.
Analysis:
This landmark decision established the 'corporate opportunity doctrine' in American law, often referred to as the 'Guth test.' It provides a clear framework for determining when a fiduciary's personal acquisition of a business opportunity constitutes a breach of their duty of loyalty. The ruling emphasizes that the duty of loyalty is not a 'moral of the market place' but a strict obligation that prevents fiduciaries from creating conflicts between their self-interest and their corporate duties. This case remains a foundational authority in corporate law, influencing how courts analyze conflicts of interest and the scope of a director's or officer's obligations to their corporation.
Unlock the full brief for Guth v. Loft, Inc.