Joy v. North
1981 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18008, 519 F. Supp. 1312 (1981)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A disinterested special litigation committee of a corporation's board of directors may, under the business judgment rule, terminate a shareholder derivative suit, provided that state law permits such dismissal, it is consistent with underlying federal law, and the committee's decision is made in good faith, thoroughly, and independently.
Facts:
- In 1977, a shareholder derivative action was instituted on behalf of Citytrust Bancorp., Inc. (then Connecticut Financial Services Corporation) against numerous officers and directors of Bancorp and its wholly owned subsidiary Citytrust.
- Plaintiff alleged that the defendants violated the National Banks Act and common law fiduciary duties by authorizing and extending a series of loans for the construction of a building by the Katz Corporation.
- Following the Supreme Court's decision in Burks v. Lasker (1979), the Board of Directors of the Corporations established a Special Litigation Committee.
- The Board selected two directors, Ms. Marion S. Kellogg and Mr. Ernest C. Trefz, claimed to be independent and disinterested, to serve on the Committee to determine whether continued prosecution of the derivative suit would serve the Corporations' best interests.
- The Committee retained the law firm of Murtha, Cullina, Richter and Pinney to assist in conducting the investigation.
- Nine months later, the Committee's counsel submitted a three-volume report containing the unanimous recommendation that the suit be dismissed against twenty-three designated defendants, but continued or settled as to the remaining seven defendants.
Procedural Posture:
- In 1977, plaintiff instituted a shareholder's derivative action in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut against numerous officers and directors of Citytrust Bancorp., Inc. and Citytrust.
- Following the Special Litigation Committee's recommendation that the suit be dismissed against twenty-three defendants, the Corporations filed motions, first to dismiss and thereafter for summary judgment, when plaintiff failed to voluntarily withdraw the claims.
- The District Court repeatedly denied these motions without prejudice, subject to renewal, to enable plaintiff to conduct limited discovery into the 'good faith, motivation and thoroughness' of the Committee’s investigation.
- At the conclusion of the stipulated discovery schedule, the Corporations renewed their motion for summary judgment.
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 the business judgment rule, as recognized by Connecticut law and consistent with the National Banks Act, permit an independent special litigation committee of a corporation's board of directors to terminate a shareholder derivative suit alleging breach of fiduciary duties and federal statutory violations, when the committee's investigation is found to be independent, in good faith, and thorough?
Opinions:
Majority - EGINTON, District Judge.
Yes, the business judgment rule, as recognized by Connecticut law and consistent with the National Banks Act, permits an independent special litigation committee of a corporation's board of directors to terminate a shareholder derivative suit alleging breach of fiduciary duties and federal statutory violations, particularly when the committee's investigation is found to be independent, in good faith, and thorough. Applying the three-prong test from Burks v. Lasker, the court first found that Connecticut law embraces the business judgment rule. While not explicitly codified, it is derived from C.G.S. § 33-313(a), which grants directors power to manage the corporation, and is implicitly accepted in Connecticut case law (e.g., Pratt v. Pratt, Read & Co.) and legislative history. The court determined that this rule's scope includes a disinterested committee's decision to terminate a derivative suit, aligning with extensive judicial authority in other jurisdictions. The court rejected plaintiff’s arguments that this rule was inapplicable due to alleged common law breach of trust, an absolute right to litigate under C.G.S. § 52-572j, the 'non-ratifiable' nature of the wrongs, or claims of self-dealing under C.G.S. § 33-323; these arguments were found to be either misplaced or unsupported by evidence of actual bias. Second, the court found no conflict between the Connecticut business judgment rule and the National Banks Act. Citing Burks, the court emphasized that federal law in this area is primarily regulatory and prohibitory, not meant to displace state corporate law unless Congress explicitly so intended or there was a clear federal policy conflict. Plaintiff’s reliance on Sections 24, 73, 84, and 93 of the Act was deemed conclusory and failed to demonstrate such a conflict. The court noted that the committee’s partial dismissal (allowing claims against some defendants) actually furthered federal purposes and that the bank's shift to state regulation rendered federal interests de minimis. Finally, the court determined that the Committee satisfied the requirements of independence, good faith, and thoroughness. It rejected plaintiff's claims of Ms. Kellogg's lack of independence (due to a remote vote on a guarantor's release), and claims of 'prejudgment' based on prior board votes or participation in fee discussions. The court found no evidence of actual bias or self-dealing, noting the Committee's decision to proceed with the suit against seven defendants as strong evidence of its good faith. The investigation was also deemed thorough, given the extensive hours spent and documents reviewed, and the court maintained its stance against probing the substantive merits of the Committee's business judgment.
Analysis:
This case significantly solidifies the application of the business judgment rule in federal courts, particularly for shareholder derivative suits involving both state law and federal statutory claims, by implementing the Burks v. Lasker framework. It empowers independent special litigation committees to serve as a crucial corporate governance mechanism for resolving complex internal disputes, balancing shareholder derivative rights with directorial autonomy. The ruling limits judicial review to the committee's process (independence, good faith, thoroughness) rather than the merits of its substantive conclusions, preventing courts from second-guessing business decisions. This creates a clear pathway for corporations to terminate litigation deemed detrimental to their interests, offering protection to directors from protracted litigation when a legitimate, unbiased process is followed.
