Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co. v. W. S. Dickey Clay Manufacturing Co.
24 A.2d 315, 1942 Del. LEXIS 8, 26 Del. Ch. 411 (1942)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An amendment to a corporate charter that increases the authorized number of shares of a superior class of stock does not, by itself, "alter or change preferences, special rights or powers" of a subordinate class so as to require a separate class vote under Section 26 of the Delaware General Corporation Law.
Facts:
- Prior to January 10, 1940, York Corp.'s authorized capital stock included 260,000 shares of no par value preferred stock, 500,000 shares of Class A stock ($1 par value), and 195,000 shares of no par value common stock.
- The preferred stock was entitled to a $1.00 annual non-cumulative dividend, which could be paid partially or wholly in Class A stock if not paid in cash.
- Voting rights were exclusively vested in the preferred and common shares, except upon certain dividend defaults, when Class A shares gained voting rights.
- On January 10, 1940, complainant Root owned 25 preferred shares, 20 Class A shares, and 35,890 common shares of York Corp.
- On November 17, 1939, York Corp.'s directors recommended a charter amendment to increase the number of authorized Class A shares to 1,000,000, explaining to stockholders that this was to ensure sufficient Class A stock for preferred dividends and maintain the company's financial stability.
- At the stockholders' meeting on January 10, 1940, Root demanded that the common shares be voted separately on the proposed amendment, but the vote was taken in two classes: Class A shares (352,261.5 in favor, 20 against) and preferred and common shares voting together (183,325 in favor, 36,890 against).
- The corporation had undergone reorganization under Section 77B of the Federal Bankruptcy Act in 1931, establishing its current capital structure, and had previously paid preferred dividends partially in Class A stock in 1937 and 1938 without objection from Root.
- The proposed amendment passed with the combined vote of preferred and common shares, despite a majority of common shares voting against it.
Procedural Posture:
- Complainant Root filed a bill of complaint in the Court of Chancery of Delaware, seeking to enjoin an amendment to York Corp.'s charter and to declare the proposed amendment void.
- York Corp. filed a demurrer to Root's bill of complaint, which the Court of Chancery sustained.
- Root elected to take final judgment, and the Court of Chancery entered a decree dismissing the bill.
- Root appealed this decree to the Supreme Court of Delaware.
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 an amendment to a corporate charter that increases the number of authorized shares of a superior class of stock require a separate class vote of common shareholders under Section 26 of the General Corporation Law, even if it adversely affects their relative position in the capital structure?
Opinions:
Majority - Layton, Chief Justice
No, an amendment increasing the number of authorized shares of a superior class does not require a separate class vote of common shareholders under Section 26 of the General Corporation Law, even if it affects their relative position. The court held that Section 26 mandates a class vote only when a proposed amendment would 'alter or change the preferences, special rights or powers' of a class of stock adversely, or when it would 'increase or decrease the amount of the authorized stock of such class or classes of stock,' or 'increase or decrease the par value thereof.' The court reasoned that while increasing the number of authorized Class A shares would alter the relative position of common shares by increasing their subordination, it does not change the 'peculiar, or special, quality' of the common shares themselves. The statute's reference to 'relative rights' pertains to the inherent qualities of the shares, not their position within the overall capitalization plan. Citing Starring v. American Hair & Felt Corp., the court clarified that ordinary voting rights or burdens do not constitute 'preferences or special rights' warranting a separate class vote under the statute. Furthermore, the court found the complainant's arguments of unfairness, inequity, or fraud to be premature, as the mere authorization of additional shares did not constitute imminent injury; actual issuance might or might not occur, or could be for cash. Finally, constitutional challenges under the Contract Clause and Due Process Clause were dismissed, as the power of corporate amendment is implicitly written into every corporate charter by state law (Section 83), making shareholders' rights subject to such alterations, and prior state decisions consistently upheld the corporation's right to affect existing stock positions by creating superior classes.
Analysis:
This case provides a crucial interpretation of Delaware's General Corporation Law, particularly Section 26, clarifying the thresholds for requiring a separate class vote on charter amendments. It establishes that a mere shift in the 'relative position' of a subordinate stock class due to an increase in authorized shares of a superior class does not trigger a separate class vote unless the amendment directly alters the subordinate class's specific preferences, special rights, or powers. This decision grants Delaware corporations significant flexibility in capital restructuring, allowing them to increase superior stock without direct common shareholder approval unless explicitly provided for, reinforcing the state's pro-management corporate governance framework. It limits the ability of common shareholders to block actions that dilute their relative standing but do not directly strip them of 'special rights.'
