No, the brothers did nothing wrong. The court said you have to ask two questions. First, was the new business idea something the family company could or should have done? The court found that for most of the new companies (like plastics), the answer was 'no' because Miller Waste didn't have the right tools or expert employees. Second, even if it was an idea the company could have done (like the small packaging), were the brothers being fair? The court said 'yes,' because they didn't hide what they were doing, they used their own money, and their new businesses ended up making the old family company more successful than ever.

No, the Miller brothers did not wrongly take business opportunities from Miller Waste Mills because the court found that the other companies' businesses were different from Miller Waste Mills' usual business. Miller Waste Mills also didn't have the money or skills to do those businesses anyway. The opportunities actually helped Miller Waste Mills by giving it guaranteed customers. Rudolph and Benjamin were honest and fair to Miller Waste Mills, and the other leaders and owners at the time approved of their actions.

No. The officers' acquisition of the business opportunities did not constitute a wrongful diversion because the new ventures were either not within the corporation's line of business, or, if they were, the acquisition was done in good faith and ultimately benefited the corporation. The court established a two-step analysis for corporate opportunity cases. The first step is to determine if the opportunity is a 'corporate opportunity' by applying a flexible 'line of business' test. This considers whether the corporation has an interest or expectancy, the opportunity's relation to the corporation's business, and the corporation's practical and financial ability to pursue it. The court found most of the new businesses, such as plastics and advanced lubricators, were not in Miller Waste's line of business due to a lack of technical capacity. The second step, applied if an opportunity is found to be a corporate one (like the small packaging business), is to scrutinize the officer's actions for fairness and good faith. The court found Rudolph and Benjamin met this standard because they fully disclosed their activities, did not use corporate assets or facilities, and their new ventures created a captive market that ensured Miller Waste's survival and success. Their actions, far from harming the corporation, were found to have greatly benefited it.

Yes, defendants Rudolph W. and Benjamin A. Miller did not wrongfully appropriate to themselves or to defendant corporations any business opportunities properly belonging to Miller Waste Mills, Inc. because the court found that the businesses of the defendant corporations were not in the line of business of Miller Waste and that Miller Waste lacked the financial or technical ability to pursue the opportunities. The diversions benefited rather than harmed Miller Waste by providing it with a captive market. Furthermore, Rudolph and Benjamin acted in good faith, with loyalty and fair dealing towards Miller Waste, and their actions were ratified by the then officers and shareholders.

Miller v. Miller

Case Podcast

Rule of Law:

The Legal Principle

Facts:

Procedural Posture:

How It Got Here

Issue:

Legal Question at Stake

Opinions:

Majority, Concurrences & Dissents

Analysis:

Why This Case Matters

Gunnerbot