Shanken v. Lee Wolfman, Inc.
370 S.W.2d 197, 1963 Tex. App. LEXIS 2223 (1963)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under the Texas Business Corporation Act, a corporate charter amendment that increases the aggregate number of authorized shares of specific classes of stock only requires a two-thirds class vote from those classes being directly affected, and not from other classes whose aggregate number of shares, designations, preferences, limitations, or relative rights remain unchanged.
Facts:
- Lee Wolfman, Inc., a company that merchandises ladies' ready-to-wear, was incorporated under Texas law on March 10, 1958.
- At the company's organizational meeting on March 14, 1958, James Shanken was elected vice president and director, and the corporate stock was authorized and issued as Class A (Lee Wolfman), Class B (Irene Ford), and Class C (James Shanken), each with 100 shares at $100 par value.
- In December 1961, Lee and Margaret Wolfman, and Charles and Irene Ford, without James Shanken's knowledge or the approval of Lee Wolfman, Inc., opened a separate store in the Spring Branch area of Houston under the name 'Wolfman’s, Inc. — Spring Branch,' operating it under the 'Wolfman’s' name.
- On May 10, 1962, James Shanken demanded an investigation by the Board of Directors of Lee Wolfman, Inc., concerning Wolfman’s, Inc. — Spring Branch, citing concerns about unfair competition and the use of the original company's name and goodwill.
- On May 24, 1962, the directors of Lee Wolfman, Inc. voted (3-1, Shanken opposing) to acquire all the stock of Wolfman’s, Inc. — Spring Branch, intending to make it a wholly owned subsidiary.
- A resolution was then adopted to be submitted to shareholders to amend Lee Wolfman, Inc.'s charter to increase the aggregate number of authorized shares of Class A and Class B stock by 175 shares each, while Class C stock remained unchanged.
- At a special shareholders' meeting on June 4, 1962, James Shanken voted his Class C stock against the proposed charter amendment.
- The amendment passed by an overall two-thirds vote, including the affirmative vote of all Class A and Class B stock, and the charter of Lee Wolfman, Inc. was formally amended on June 21, 1962, increasing only Class A and Class B authorized shares.
Procedural Posture:
- James Shanken, individually and as a shareholder of Lee Wolfman, Inc., filed suit in a Texas trial court against Lee Wolfman, Margaret Wolfman, Charles Ford, Irene Ford, Wolfman’s Inc.— Spring Branch, and Wolfman’s Inc.
- Shanken's suit sought damages, an injunction, declaratory judgment, attorney’s fees, and a declaration that the shareholders' action on June 4, 1962, was void.
- The defendants (appellees) filed an amended motion for summary judgment.
- The trial court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment.
- Shanken appealed the summary judgment to the Court of Civil Appeals of Texas, Houston (1st Dist.), as appellant against the original defendants as appellees.
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 Texas Business Corporation Act require a two-thirds class vote from all classes of stock, including a class whose total shares and specific rights are not altered, for a corporate charter amendment that increases the aggregate number of authorized shares of only certain other classes of stock?
Opinions:
Majority - WERLEIN, Justice
No, the Texas Business Corporation Act does not require a two-thirds class vote from all classes of stock for such a charter amendment. The court held that under the Texas Business Corporation Act, particularly Articles 4.02 and 4.03, class voting rights for a specific class are triggered only under certain conditions. Article 4.03, subd. B(1) grants class voting rights if an amendment would 'Increase or decrease the aggregate number of authorized shares of such class.' Here, the amendment increased shares of Class A and B, but not Class C. Furthermore, Article 4.03, subd. B(5) provides for class voting if an amendment would 'Change the designations, preferences, limitations, or relative rights of the shares of such class.' The court found that the amendment did not alter the fundamental 'quality and retentive rights' of Class C shares; each Class C share retained its original dividend rights, voting power, and the specific right to elect one-fifth of the directors, despite the change in the overall capital structure. The court distinguished merely increasing the aggregate number of authorized shares of a class from 'changing the shares of any class...into a different number of shares of the same class,' which would trigger class voting under Article 4.03, subd. A. Citing Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co. v. W. S. Dickey C. Mfg. Co., the court reasoned that 'relative rights' refer to the inherent qualities of shares, not their proportional position within the capital structure. Therefore, since Class C shares themselves were not changed in number or in their specific rights, the Class C shareholders were not entitled to a separate class vote on the amendment.
Analysis:
This case clarifies the interpretation of shareholder class voting rights under the Texas Business Corporation Act, particularly the distinction between an amendment that increases the aggregate number of authorized shares of a specific class and one that fundamentally alters the 'designations, preferences, limitations, or relative rights' of that class. It establishes that a change in the overall capital structure that impacts the proportional ownership of different classes, but does not directly modify the number of shares or specific rights of a particular class, does not automatically trigger class voting rights for that unaffected class. This precedent provides crucial guidance for corporations seeking to modify their capital structure and for shareholders challenging such modifications, emphasizing the specific statutory triggers for class-specific voting rather than broad implications on proportional ownership.
