Kelegian v. Mgrdichian
33 Cal.App.4th 982, 39 Cal. Rptr. 2d 390, 95 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 2371 (1995)
Rule of Law:
A corporate director does not usurp a corporate opportunity by purchasing shares of the corporation for their own account unless there is a clear, established corporate policy or an existing 'beachhead' interest for the corporation to acquire those specific shares.
Facts:
- In February 1984, the California Commerce Club, Inc. (Corporation) settled a dispute with Board member W. Patrick Moriarty, requiring him to surrender most of his shares to prevent any single individual from gaining too much power.
- From May 1985 to March 1986, John Mgrdichian acquired 90 shares of the Corporation's stock and was elected to its Board of Directors, expressing his intent to become a "more substantial" stockholder.
- In April 1986, fellow Board member Haig Kelegian warned Mgrdichian at a Board meeting that his active solicitation of shares might expose him to legal action for violating fiduciary duties, but Mgrdichian asserted he was acting as an individual, and the Board took no action.
- In August 1986, Herbert Stem, a Board member, announced his resignation and indicated his 200 shares of Corporation stock were available for sale.
- In September 1986, Corporation stockholders authorized the Board to acquire a sufficient number of shares to reduce the shareholder count to 35, specifically to regain Subchapter S tax status. This goal was achieved by November 1986, and the Corporation filed for the status.
- On December 31, 1986, John Mgrdichian purchased all 200 of Herbert Stem's shares. During the period from Stem's announcement in August until Mgrdichian's purchase, no other Board member had expressed interest in buying these shares for themselves or the Corporation.
Procedural Posture:
- Haig Kelegian, Zack Anter, Harry Massman, and Peter Lynch (appellants) brought a legal action on behalf of the California Commerce Club, Inc. (Corporation) against Jasmine Mgrdichian (individually and as representative of John Mgrdichian’s estate) and the Corporation (respondents) in a state trial court (court of first instance).
- Appellants contended that John Mgrdichian’s purchase of shares from Herbert Stem should be voided as a misappropriation of a corporate opportunity.
- After a court trial, the trial court found that appellants had failed to carry their burden of proof to establish that the corporation had set a specific policy to repurchase shares.
- Judgment was entered by the trial court in favor of respondents.
- Appellants appealed the trial court's judgment to the California Court of Appeal.
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 director usurp a corporate opportunity by purchasing shares of the corporation for their own account when the corporation lacks a formal policy or established 'beachhead' interest in acquiring its own shares, even if some directors generally desire the corporation to acquire shares or maintain proportionate ownership?
Opinions:
Majority - Hastings, J.
No, a corporate director does not usurp a corporate opportunity by purchasing shares for their own account when the corporation has not formally established a policy or developed a 'beachhead' interest in acquiring those specific shares, even if general discussions about corporate share acquisition occurred. The court affirmed the trial court's finding that there was insufficient evidence to establish a corporate policy that would create a corporate opportunity for Mgrdichian's purchase of Stem's shares. The court noted that a director generally violates no duty to their corporation by dealing in its stock on their own account, citing Zidell v. Zidell, which held that absent a corporate policy, there is normally no special corporate interest in the opportunity to purchase its own shares. While some directors, including appellants, expressed concerns about maintaining proportionate ownership and discussed acquiring shares, there was no formal corporate action taken upon which a finding of a 'beachhead' interest, as required by the 'interest or expectancy' test, could be based. The limited corporate decision to repurchase shares for Subchapter S qualification was distinct and had been successfully achieved prior to Mgrdichian's purchase of Stem's shares. The court emphasized that whether a corporate opportunity exists is a question of fact, and the trial court's assessment of credibility, finding that appellants' testimony about a continuous policy became 'real to them' over time but was not a formal policy, was entitled to deference.
Analysis:
This case clarifies the application of the corporate opportunity doctrine in California, particularly regarding a director's purchase of corporate shares. It establishes a high threshold for proving a corporate opportunity exists in such situations, requiring more than general discussion or a mere desire among some directors. The ruling emphasizes the necessity of formal corporate action or a clear, documented 'beachhead' interest for an opportunity to be deemed corporate, thereby limiting the scope of fiduciary duty claims against directors who acquire company stock for personal investment. Future cases will likely cite this decision to demand concrete evidence of corporate policy or a specific, pre-existing interest to sustain a claim of usurpation of corporate share purchase opportunities.
