People v. Oliver Schools, Inc.
619 N.Y.S.2d 911, 206 A.D.2d 143 (1994)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A corporation can be judicially dissolved under Business Corporation Law § 1101 (a) (2) if it conducts its business in a persistently illegal manner that constitutes a grave, substantial, and continuing abuse harming or menacing the public welfare, and such dissolution may be granted via summary judgment if no material facts are genuinely contested.
Facts:
- Oliver Schools, Inc. (OSI) operated four business schools in New York State.
- Most of OSI's students funded their tuition through Guaranteed Student Loans (GSL) administered in New York by the Higher Education Services Corp. (HESC).
- Federal and State regulations required schools to refund a portion of GSLs to lenders within 30 days if a student withdrew from school.
- OSI's student loan refund arrearages grew from approximately $414,000 in January 1987 to $738,593.92 in February 1989.
- OSI repeatedly failed to make these required refund payments in a timely manner.
- OSI used refund money rightfully belonging to its former students to address its own internal cash flow problems.
- For two years, OSI promised HESC that it would resolve the refund problem, but the outstanding amount continued to increase.
- HESC eventually suspended OSI's participation in the student loan programs, which led OSI to close its four New York schools.
Procedural Posture:
- In 1989, the Attorney-General of New York commenced an action in the Supreme Court (the trial court of first instance in New York) to judicially dissolve Oliver Schools, Inc. (OSI) under Business Corporation Law article 11.
- On May 10, 1993, the Supreme Court granted the Attorney-General's motion for summary judgment, concluding that OSI had conducted its business in a persistently illegal manner and that dissolution served the public interest.
- Oliver Schools, Inc. (appellant) appealed the Supreme Court's order to the New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division (an intermediate appellate 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 a corporation's persistent failure to make timely student loan refund payments, in violation of Federal and State regulations, constitute a "persistently illegal manner" warranting judicial dissolution under Business Corporation Law § 1101 (a)(2), and can such dissolution be granted via summary judgment without a jury trial when no material facts are genuinely contested?
Opinions:
Majority - Wesley, J.
Yes, a corporation's persistent failure to make timely student loan refund payments, in violation of Federal and State regulations, constitutes a "persistently illegal manner" warranting judicial dissolution, and such dissolution can be granted via summary judgment without a jury trial when no material facts are genuinely contested. The court affirmed the lower court's dissolution order, finding the record clearly supported the determination that OSI had conducted its business in a persistently illegal manner under Business Corporation Law § 1101 (a) (2). This statute empowers the State to remedy abuses of corporate power, and while dissolution is a drastic measure, it is warranted by 'grave cause' and 'material misconduct' that 'harm or menace the public welfare,' as established in People v North Riv. Sugar Ref. Co. The court found that OSI's uncontroverted actions—systematically using student refund money for its own cash flow, allowing arrearages to escalate despite promises to HESC, and closing its schools after HESC's intervention—met this high standard for a 'grave, substantial and continuing abuse.' The court also rejected OSI's claim for a jury trial, holding that a hearing is only necessary when there is a contested material issue of fact. Given that OSI did not dispute the key figures regarding student numbers, refunds owed, or the escalating problem, and failed to present facts sufficient to deny summary judgment, a trial was deemed unnecessary. Furthermore, the extensive negotiations between the State and OSI prior to litigation, coupled with the lengthy period between the commencement of the lawsuit and the grant of summary judgment, provided OSI with ample due process and opportunity to be heard.
Analysis:
This case significantly reinforces the New York Attorney-General's authority to seek judicial dissolution for corporate misconduct that persistently violates laws and harms the public. It clarifies that even severe financial mismanagement, when it constitutes a 'grave, substantial and continuing abuse' affecting public beneficiaries like students, can trigger this extreme remedy. The ruling also underscores that summary judgment for dissolution is appropriate where a corporation fails to genuinely dispute the material facts of its wrongdoing, thereby streamlining the process for addressing clear public harm. This precedent is crucial for future cases involving educational institutions, non-profits, or other entities that handle public funds or operate under stringent regulations, emphasizing that systemic and unaddressed regulatory non-compliance can lead to the ultimate corporate penalty.
