Nelkin v. H. J. R. Realty Corp.
307 N.Y.S.2d 454, 25 N.Y.2d 543, 255 N.E.2d 713 (1969)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Operating a close corporation in accordance with a shareholders' agreement does not constitute a breach of fiduciary duty sufficient to warrant non-statutory judicial dissolution, even if changed circumstances cause the agreement to exclusively benefit the majority shareholders.
Facts:
- In 1941, H.J.R. Realty Corporation was formed by tenants of a building, including Chatham Metal Products, Inc., National Machinery Exchanges, Inc., and Henry Nelkin, Inc., to own and manage the property.
- All shareholders entered into an agreement stipulating that tenants who were also shareholders would be charged an equal, discounted rental rate, while other tenants would be charged a rate determined by the corporate officers.
- For many years, Chatham, National, and Nelkin occupied most of the building at these discounted rental rates.
- Charles Richter sold his interest in Chatham in 1946, and Nelkin terminated its tenancy in 1961.
- After ceasing to be tenants, the Richter and Nelkin interests (the minority shareholders) no longer benefited from the discounted rent provision.
- The minority shareholders requested that the majority (Chatham and National) pay fair market rent, dissolve the corporation, or buy out the minority shares at a reasonable price.
- The majority shareholders refused, stating their intention to continue operating under the 1941 agreement, and offered to buy the minority shares at their original 1941 value.
- Chatham also announced its plan to occupy additional vacant space in the building at the discounted rate.
Procedural Posture:
- Nelkin and Richter, minority shareholders, filed a petition for judicial dissolution of H.J.R. Realty Corporation in the New York Supreme Court, which is a trial-level court.
- The Supreme Court granted the petition.
- The corporation, as respondent, appealed to the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court, an intermediate appellate court.
- The Appellate Division reversed the trial court's order and dismissed the petition for failure to state a cause of action.
- The petitioners, Nelkin and Richter, appealed the dismissal 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:
Does the continuation of a corporation's existence pursuant to a shareholders' agreement, which results in financial benefits for the majority shareholders but not for minority shareholders who are no longer tenants, constitute a breach of fiduciary duty sufficient to warrant non-statutory judicial dissolution?
Opinions:
Majority - Scileppi, J.
No. The continuation of a corporation's existence under a shareholders' agreement that benefits only the majority does not constitute a breach of fiduciary duty warranting judicial dissolution. The court reasoned that the majority shareholders were acting in compliance with the 1941 shareholders' agreement, which the minority shareholders had previously benefited from. This conduct does not amount to the 'looting' or 'wrongful diversion' of corporate assets required for non-statutory dissolution under the standard set in Leibert v. Clapp. The court distinguished this case from Leibert, where assets were wrongfully diverted to a parent company, and found it more analogous to Kruger v. Gerth, where paying substantial salaries was not deemed looting. The fact that the minority shareholders' circumstances changed by their own voluntary action (terminating their tenancies) does not entitle them to dissolve the corporation, which continues to operate for its original purpose as defined by the agreement.
Dissenting - Fuld, C.J.
Yes. A cause of action for dissolution exists and the petition should not have been dismissed. The dissent argued that the corporation was originally formed as a cooperative venture for the mutual benefit of all shareholder-tenants. Once the petitioners ceased to be tenants, the fundamental purpose of the corporation was frustrated for them, and the corporation continued to exist solely and exclusively for the benefit of the majority. The dissent contended that in a close corporation, which is akin to a partnership, when changing circumstances render the original mutual purpose impossible and the entity is used to benefit only some owners, a court of equity should permit dissolution. The dissent believed the majority's focus on 'looting' was too narrow and ignored the business reality and inherent inequity of siphoning all potential profits to the majority through reduced rent.
Analysis:
This decision significantly raises the threshold for minority shareholders in New York seeking non-statutory dissolution of a close corporation based on oppressive majority conduct. It establishes that actions taken in good faith under a valid shareholders' agreement will generally not be considered a breach of fiduciary duty, even if they create a severe imbalance of benefits. The ruling prioritizes the enforcement of private contractual arrangements among shareholders over generalized equitable claims of unfairness. Consequently, this precedent limits the power of courts to intervene in internal corporate disputes arising from changed circumstances, pushing aggrieved minority shareholders toward derivative suits challenging the validity of the underlying agreement rather than seeking the corporation's dissolution.
