Katzowitz v. Sidler
249 N.E.2d 359, 301 N.Y.S.2d 470, 24 N.Y.2d 512 (1969)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Directors of a close corporation breach their fiduciary duty when they issue new stock for a price substantially below its fair value, thereby diluting the interest of a non-purchasing shareholder, unless there is a valid business justification for the price.
Facts:
- Isador Katzowitz, Jacob Sidler, and Max Lasker were the sole and equal one-third shareholders and directors of Sulburn Holding Corp., a close corporation.
- A personal dispute arose, and Sidler and Lasker began taking steps to oust Katzowitz from management.
- In 1959, the three men entered a stipulation agreement wherein Katzowitz withdrew from daily operations but would remain an equal shareholder and director.
- In 1961, Sulburn was indebted to each of the three men for $2,500.
- Knowing Katzowitz did not wish to invest additional funds, Sidler and Lasker called a board meeting that Katzowitz did not attend.
- At the meeting, Sidler and Lasker voted to offer 75 new shares of stock at $100 per share, when the book value was later determined to be $1,800 per share.
- Katzowitz was offered the right to purchase 25 shares but declined; he received his $2,500 payment from the corporation, while Sidler and Lasker each purchased their 25 shares.
- Upon the corporation's dissolution a year later, Katzowitz received only $3,147.59, while Sidler and Lasker each received $18,885.52 due to the dilution of Katzowitz's equity interest.
Procedural Posture:
- Isador Katzowitz filed a declaratory judgment action in the New York Supreme Court, Special Term (the trial court) against the individual directors and the corporation.
- The Special Term found in favor of the defendants, holding that Katzowitz waived his right to object by failing to exercise his pre-emptive rights.
- Katzowitz, as appellant, appealed to the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court, Second Department (the intermediate appellate court).
- The Appellate Division affirmed the substantive holding of the trial court, finding no proof of fraud and that Katzowitz had waived his rights. Sidler and Lasker were the appellees.
- Katzowitz then appealed to the Court of Appeals of New York, the state's highest court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Do directors of a close corporation breach their fiduciary duty by issuing new stock for a price substantially below its fair value, even if a minority shareholder is given a pre-emptive right to purchase a proportionate number of the new shares?
Opinions:
Majority - Keating, J.
Yes. Directors of a close corporation breach their fiduciary duty when they issue new shares at a price far below fair value without a valid business justification, as this action wrongfully dilutes the equity of existing shareholders who do not purchase the new shares. Directors, as fiduciaries, must treat all shareholders fairly. The corollary to a stockholder’s right to purchase additional shares to maintain their proportionate equity is the right not to purchase additional shares without being confronted with a dilution of their existing equity, unless a valid business reason exists for that dilution. While pre-emptive rights may protect shareholders in a publicly-held corporation, such rights are 'illusory' in a close corporation where there is no ready market to sell them. When a plaintiff shows that shares were issued at a price markedly below book value and that the director-shareholders benefited, the burden shifts to the directors to show a valid business justification for the price. Here, the defendants offered no such justification, and the disparity in price was a tactic to force the dissident stockholder to either invest more money or have his equity diminished.
Dissenting - Fuld, C.J.
No. The Chief Judge dissented and voted to affirm based on the opinion of the Appellate Division, which held that a mere disparity between book value and offering price was insufficient to prove a breach of duty without also showing fraud or overreaching, and that the plaintiff had waived his rights by failing to exercise his pre-emptive rights.
Analysis:
This case establishes a significant protection for minority shareholders in close corporations against oppressive tactics by the majority. It clarifies that a director's fiduciary duty of loyalty includes a duty of substantive fairness in pricing new stock issuances, not just procedural fairness in offering pre-emptive rights. The decision created a burden-shifting framework that forces majority directors to justify a low offering price with a legitimate business purpose, thereby preventing them from using stock sales as a tool to freeze out or dilute the equity of dissident shareholders. This precedent strengthens judicial oversight of internal corporate affairs, particularly in the unique context of close corporations where market protections are absent.
