Schrag v. Dinges
1993 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9203, 825 F. Supp. 954, 1993 WL 248951 (1993)
Rule of Law:
Shareholders generally cannot sue directly for injuries to a corporation, including diminution in stock value, unless they allege a distinct personal injury or a breach of a special duty owed directly to them; this principle applies to civil RICO actions.
Facts:
- Merlin Kaufman owned land being developed into a residential community, including a country club and golf course, with Gary Dinges' company, Paganica, Inc., managing the country club complex and residential lot development.
- Plaintiffs Schwartz and Meier, through their corporation S & M, Inc., leased and operated a pro shop and supper club within the country club complex from Paganica.
- On April 1, 1981, Paganica entered into a Management Agreement with S & M, Inc., granting S & M the exclusive right to operate the entire country club complex, an option to purchase it for $1 million, and an express promise not to further encumber the property.
- By 1982, Paganica faced severe financial distress due to environmental regulations halting lot sales and mandated repurchases, bringing it to the verge of bankruptcy.
- Gary Dinges and Jay Ewing devised a plan to form Rexmoor Properties, Inc., to refinance Paganica’s debt by transferring Paganica’s assets to Rexmoor in exchange for stock.
- Gary Dinges, already in debt, sought loans for Paganica from Ellinwood Bank, secured by a letter of credit from Valley Federal Savings & Loan, with officers (Mark Youngers, Fred Shaffer) and Ellinwood's president (Robert Simpson) having personal interests in Rexmoor.
- In violation of the Management Agreement, Gary Dinges encumbered the property subject to S & M’s option as security for Valley Federal’s letter of credit, with Youngers, Shaffer, and Simpson allegedly aware of the S & M option and conspiring to make fraudulent loans to Paganica by misrepresenting S & M’s assets.
- The Rexmoor venture ultimately failed, and its public offering registration was withdrawn from the SEC in February 1984, leading to allegations by Schwartz and Meier that defendants committed mail fraud in connection with the fraudulent scheme.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiffs Schwartz and Meier filed a civil action under the Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act ('RICO') in the United States District Court for the District of Kansas.
- The plaintiffs' Third Amended Complaint included Count I, also known as the Paganica Supper Club Scheme, brought by Schwartz and Meier.
- Defendants Mark Youngers, Robert Simpson, and Fred Shaffer filed separate motions for summary judgment concerning Count I of the Third Amended Complaint, arguing that Schwartz and Meier were not the proper parties to assert the RICO claim.
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 shareholder of a corporation have standing to bring a direct civil RICO action for injuries primarily suffered by the corporation, even if the shareholder was a party to the underlying agreement related to the alleged fraud?
Opinions:
Majority - Theis, District Judge
No, Schwartz and Meier do not have the right to bring a direct civil RICO claim for injuries primarily suffered by their corporation, S & M, Inc., even though they were parties to the Management Agreement. As a general rule of corporation law, shareholders cannot sue directly for corporate injuries, including diminution in stock value; such actions must be brought by the corporation itself or, in some circumstances, as a derivative action by the shareholders. This prohibition on non-derivative suits applies equally to civil RICO actions. Exceptions to this rule apply only when the shareholder plaintiff alleges either a distinct injury that other shareholders did not suffer or a breach of a special duty between the plaintiff shareholder and the defendant. In this case, the Management Agreement granted S & M, Inc. the option to purchase the property and contained the promise not to encumber it, not Schwartz and Meier individually. The plaintiffs' claims of 'special duty' or 'contractual rights' are unsupported and conclusory, failing to demonstrate any duty owed specifically to them that was violated. The court emphasized that the fact that Schwartz and Meier, as natural persons, negotiated for S & M, Inc. does not create individual rights for them, as corporations must necessarily act through individuals. Their alleged losses derived solely from the violation of the promise made to the corporation and were shared proportionally by all S & M shareholders, thus not constituting a distinct injury. Therefore, Schwartz and Meier are not the proper parties to assert the RICO claim.
Analysis:
This case strongly affirms the corporate law principle of the corporation as a separate legal entity, especially regarding standing for direct shareholder lawsuits. It clarifies that even under broad federal statutes like RICO, shareholders must establish a direct, personal injury or breach of duty distinct from harm to the corporation to sue directly. The court's discussion, while noting the technical distinction between 'standing' and 'real party in interest' under Rule 17(a), ultimately concludes that the practical outcome for plaintiffs remains the same, underscoring the importance of identifying the correct plaintiff for corporate harm. This precedent guides future litigants in complex corporate fraud cases to ensure proper alignment of the plaintiff with the injured party.
