Insuranshares Corporation v. Northern Fiscal Corp.
35 F. Supp. 22, 1940 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2455 (1940)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Corporate directors and controlling shareholders are under a duty not to transfer control to outsiders if the circumstances surrounding the proposed transfer are sufficiently suspicious to awaken the suspicion of a prudent person. This duty requires a reasonably adequate investigation into the purchaser's intentions, and a failure to investigate can result in liability for any subsequent looting of the corporation.
Facts:
- Prior to December 1937, a management group, including the defendant Philadelphia banks and their representative William W. Hepburn, held a controlling, though minority, block of stock in Insuranshares Corp.
- The management group negotiated to sell their stock and control to the 'Boston group' for $3.60 per share, a price significantly higher than the over-the-counter price of $1.00-$1.25 and the book value of $2.25.
- Hepburn was aware of several suspicious circumstances, including that the corporation had been looted five years earlier in a similar manner, and that the corporation's president, Blair, had recently been involved in a failed sale where the corporation's own assets were to be used to finance the purchase.
- The Boston group demanded that a significant portion of the corporation’s assets be converted into cash and made available immediately upon their takeover.
- Hepburn and the banks received direct warnings from the corporation's lawyer and another party about the potential danger of selling control to a group about whom they knew very little.
- Despite these red flags, the management group made no adequate investigation into the financial resources or intentions of the Boston group.
- On December 21, 1937, the management group sold their stock, resigned from the board, and ceded control to the Boston group.
- Immediately after gaining control, the Boston group used the corporation's assets to finance their purchase and proceeded to loot the company of its remaining valuable assets.
Procedural Posture:
- Insuranshares Corp. of Delaware filed a suit in equity in the United States District Court against its former officers, directors, and certain former stockholders, including three Philadelphia banks and William W. Hepburn.
- The suit sought to recover damages incurred by the corporation after its control was sold to a group that subsequently looted its assets.
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 controlling shareholder group have a duty to conduct a reasonable investigation into a purchaser when circumstances surrounding the sale of control, such as an inflated price and explicit warnings of danger, would arouse the suspicion of a prudent person that the purchaser intends to loot the corporation?
Opinions:
Majority - Kirkpatrick, District Judge
Yes, a controlling shareholder group has a duty to investigate a potential purchaser when suspicious circumstances are present. Those who control a corporation owe a duty to the corporation not to transfer that control to outsiders if the circumstances would awaken suspicion in a prudent person, unless a reasonably adequate investigation reveals no fraudulent intent is likely. In this case, the sellers were confronted with numerous red flags: an inflated purchase price indicating a premium for control rather than assets, the buyers' insistence on immediate asset liquidation, knowledge of a prior similar looting scheme, and direct warnings of danger. These facts triggered a duty of 'active vigilence and inquiry.' The defendants failed to conduct any meaningful investigation into the buyers' financial standing or the source of their funds, which was a breach of their duty of due care. This breach enabled the buyers to loot the corporation, and therefore the sellers are liable for the resulting damages.
Analysis:
This case establishes the influential principle that the sale of corporate control is not merely a private transaction but carries with it a fiduciary-like duty to the corporation and its minority shareholders. The court imposes a negligence standard, holding that controlling shareholders cannot be willfully blind to suspicious circumstances. This decision created a significant precedent, often called the 'Insuranshares doctrine,' which requires sellers of control to conduct a reasonable investigation when red flags suggest the buyer may be a looter, thereby extending liability beyond active participation in fraud to a failure to exercise due care.
Unlock the full brief for Insuranshares Corporation v. Northern Fiscal Corp.