Rosenfeld v. Fairchild Engine & Airplane Corp.
309 N.Y. 168, 51 A.L.R. 2d 860 (1955)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
In a proxy contest over corporate policy, incumbent directors may use corporate funds for reasonable and proper expenses to solicit proxies and defend their positions. Additionally, stockholders may ratify the reimbursement of reasonable and bona fide expenses incurred by successful insurgent contestants in such a policy contest.
Facts:
- A proxy contest arose between the incumbent board of directors of a corporation and an insurgent group of stockholders.
- The dispute centered on significant issues of corporate policy, including a long-term employment and pension contract for the corporation's principal executive officer, J. Carlton Ward, Jr.
- While in office, the incumbent board of directors spent $106,000 of corporate funds to defend its policies and solicit proxies.
- The insurgent group, which also incurred significant expenses, won the proxy contest and took control of the board.
- After the change in management, the new board paid the old board an additional $28,000 for their remaining expenses.
- The new board also reimbursed the successful insurgent group for $127,000 of their expenses, a payment which was subsequently ratified by a 16-to-1 majority vote of the stockholders.
- A stockholder, Rosenfeld, challenged these payments, totaling $261,522, as an improper use of corporate funds.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiff Rosenfeld, a stockholder, initiated a stockholder's derivative action against the corporation's directors.
- The case was heard by an Official Referee in the trial court, who dismissed the plaintiff's complaint on the merits.
- The plaintiff appealed to the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York.
- The Appellate Division unanimously affirmed the trial court's judgment.
- The New York Court of Appeals (the state's highest court) granted leave to 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 the use of corporate funds to reimburse both incumbent directors and successful insurgents for reasonable expenses incurred in a proxy contest over corporate policy, rather than a personal power struggle, serve a legitimate corporate purpose?
Opinions:
Majority - Froessel, J.
Yes, the use of corporate funds for reasonable expenses in a proxy contest over policy serves a legitimate corporate purpose. When directors act in good faith in a contest over policy, they have the right to incur reasonable expenses for soliciting proxies and defending their corporate policies. The court reasoned that in large corporations, directors must be able to inform stockholders and defend their policies against challengers, otherwise corporate business could be seriously interfered with. This prevents the corporation from being at the mercy of groups seeking control for personal gain. Furthermore, the stockholders have the right to reimburse successful contestants for their reasonable and bona fide expenses incurred in a policy contest, as this ratifies the achievement of an end they, as owners, voted for.
Dissenting - Van Voorhis, J.
No, the use of corporate funds to pay for campaign expenses in a proxy contest is not a legitimate corporate purpose. The distinction between a 'policy' contest and a 'personal' power struggle is impractical and unreal, as aspirants for control invariably present their personal ambitions under the guise of policy. Citing Lawyers’ Adv. Co. v. Consolidated Ry. Lighting &. Refrig. Co., the dissent argues it is a dangerous rule to permit directors to use corporate funds to perpetuate their own control. Furthermore, reimbursing insurgents is ultra vires (beyond the corporation's power) and cannot be ratified by a mere majority of stockholders; it would require unanimous consent. Allowing such reimbursements incentivizes costly power struggles, where the victor takes the spoils from the corporate treasury.
Concurring - Desmond, J.
Yes, the dismissal of the complaint should be affirmed, but because the plaintiff failed to meet his burden of proof, not because the expenses were necessarily proper. The plaintiff failed to particularize his objections and offer proof as to which specific expenditures were unreasonable or unlawful. While routine notice costs are chargeable to the corporation, payments for a faction's contest for control are unlawful. Because the plaintiff did not provide an evidentiary basis for the court to determine the lawfulness or reasonableness of specific items, he failed to make a prima facie case. The important legal question of whether to reimburse proxy fight expenses is therefore not properly presented by the record.
Analysis:
This case establishes a pivotal rule in corporate law, distinguishing between permissible and impermissible uses of corporate funds in proxy contests. By creating a distinction between 'policy' disputes and 'personal power' struggles, the court provides a legal framework for boards to defend their actions and for successful insurgents to potentially recover their costs. This decision significantly impacts corporate governance by empowering both management and shareholders in policy debates, but it also creates a factual challenge for courts to differentiate between genuine policy disputes and personal contests masked as such. Future litigation in this area will likely focus on the factual determination of whether a contest is truly over policy and whether the associated expenses are 'reasonable and proper'.
