Shapiro v. Greenfield
764 A.2d 270, 136 Md. App. 1, 2000 Md. App. LEXIS 172 (2000)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The doctrine of corporate opportunity applies when a director diverts a business opportunity that rightfully belongs to the corporation, while an interested director transaction occurs when a corporation enters into a business arrangement with an entity in which its directors have a financial interest. For an interested director transaction, a director is deemed 'interested' not by a per se rule based solely on familial or business relationships, but by whether such a relationship, combined with their direct or indirect interests, would reasonably be expected to compromise their independent judgment in a manner adverse to the corporation.
Facts:
- In 1961, College Park Woods, Inc. (College Park) acquired approximately 68 acres of land in Prince George’s County, where it constructed the 72,000 square foot Clinton Plaza shopping center.
- By 1991, Clinton Plaza was only 50% leased and generating insufficient cash flow, leading College Park's directors to decide that redevelopment into a substantially larger shopping center was the best use of the property.
- Charles Shapiro, College Park's operating officer and a director (along with his sister Joan Smith and son Michael Shapiro), developed a joint venture with S. Bruce Jaffe for the redevelopment, forming three new entities: Clinton Crossings Limited Partnership (to own the redeveloped center), Clinton Crossings, Inc. (general partner of Clinton Crossings Partnership, solely owned by Charles Shapiro), and TSC/Clinton Associates Limited Partnership (49% owner of Clinton Crossings Partnership, owned by Charles Shapiro, Jaffe, and others).
- College Park was to transfer its land to Clinton Crossings Partnership in exchange for a 50% limited partnership interest, assuming no redevelopment risk, and only if conditions like securing a construction loan and 80% pre-leasing were met; College Park's capital account would be funded at $6,272,640 for Phase I.
- On October 26, 1991, a special meeting of College Park’s shareholders was called to approve the joint venture, with advance notice detailing the transaction and disclosing Charles and Michael Shapiro's interested director status and expected interest in TSC/Clinton Associates Limited Partnership.
- Minority shareholders Marvin and Betty Greenfield did not attend this special meeting, though shareholders present unanimously voted for the proposal; the Greenfields later protested the transaction's validity due to a lack of disinterested directors.
- Between 1991 and 1994, Charles Shapiro and Jaffe personally guaranteed over $2 million in bonds and expended over $1 million each for pre-construction activities and risk capital.
- On April 20, 1994, after all conditions were met, College Park conveyed the land to Clinton Crossings Limited Partnership in exchange for its 50% interest and the capital account; Charles Shapiro and Jaffe personally guaranteed the $21.5 million construction loan.
Procedural Posture:
- On July 15, 1992, Marvin and Betty Greenfield (minority shareholders) filed a derivative suit in the Circuit Court for Montgomery County against College Park Woods, Inc. (College Park) and its officers and directors (Charles S. Shapiro, Michael Shapiro, and Joan Smith), requesting damages, an accounting, the appointment of a receiver, the imposition of a constructive trust, the dissolution of the corporation, attorneys’ fees, and other relief.
- On October 4, 1994, the Greenfields amended their complaint, adding Clinton Crossings Inc. (CCI), Clinton Crossings Limited Partnership, and TSC/Clinton Associates Limited Partnership as defendants, alleging the Clinton Crossings redevelopment was a corporate opportunity usurped by the appellants.
- The matter was tried before the Circuit Court for Montgomery County from May 1 to May 4, 1995.
- On June 29, 1995, the trial court entered an interlocutory order granting the Greenfields’ request for an accounting and appointed a special master to determine specific factual issues.
- On October 17, 1997, the special master filed his Report of Factual Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendations.
- On December 2, 1997, the Greenfields filed a motion to appoint a receiver for College Park.
- Hearings on the motion were held on December 18, 1997, January 8, 1998, and February 9, 1998.
- On February 23, 1998, the trial court issued an order finding that the disputed transaction constituted usurpation of corporate opportunity, that there were no disinterested directors, and that the transaction was not fair and reasonable to the corporation; it then ordered the appointment of a single receiver for College Park and a separate receiver for related Shapiro corporations, indicating that the specific receivers and their duties would be subject to a further order.
- On March 25, 1998, appellants (College Park, Charles S. Shapiro, Michael Shapiro, and Joan Smith) filed a timely notice of appeal of the February 23, 1998 order to the Court of Special Appeals of Maryland.
- Appellees (Greenfields) filed a motion with the Court of Special Appeals to dismiss the appeal, arguing the February 23, 1998 order was an unappealable interlocutory order, which the Court of Special Appeals denied without prejudice; appellees renewed their motion in their brief.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
1. Was the Clinton Crossings Shopping Center redevelopment a usurpation of corporate opportunity or an interested director transaction? 2. In an interested director transaction, does a director's familial or business relationship with a financially interested party automatically classify them as an 'interested director,' or must there be a reasonable expectation that the relationship would influence their independent judgment adversely to the corporation under Maryland's interested director statute (CA § 2-419)? 3. Did the trial court err in appointing a receiver without statutorily required findings of illegal, oppressive, or fraudulent conduct? 4. Are shareholder plaintiffs estopped from challenging a corporate act solely by failing to attend a shareholders' meeting after receiving due notice?
Opinions:
Majority - Kenney, Judge
1. The Clinton Crossings redevelopment transaction did not constitute a usurpation of corporate opportunity, but was instead an interested director transaction. The Court distinguished corporate opportunity doctrine from interested director transactions, stating that corporate opportunity involves a director taking an opportunity from the corporation, whereas an interested director transaction involves a director transacting business with the corporation where they have a conflict of interest. The Clinton Crossings arrangement was an internal business deal where College Park entered into a transaction with entities in which its directors had financial interests, thus it fell under the interested director statute. 2. The definition of an 'interested director' under Maryland Corporations and Associations Article § 2-419 (CA § 2-419) does not adopt a per se rule where a director is automatically deemed interested solely due to a familial or business relationship with a financially interested party. Instead, the appropriate inquiry is whether the relationship, combined with any direct or indirect interests in the transaction, would 'reasonably be expected to exert an influence on the director’s judgment' and compromise their impartiality in a manner adverse to the corporation. The statute's purpose is to prevent self-interested actions at the expense of the corporation by ensuring decisions are made by a neutral body. 3. The trial court's appointment of a receiver must be re-examined. Since the appellate court found that the trial court incorrectly applied the corporate opportunity doctrine and its 'fair and reasonable' analysis was unclear, the basis for the receiver appointment is undermined. The appointment of a receiver is an extraordinary remedy requiring proper findings of illegal, oppressive, or fraudulent conduct and an imminent danger of property loss. 4. Shareholder plaintiffs are not estopped from challenging a corporate act solely due to their absence from a shareholders' meeting after receiving notice. While acquiescence, ratification, or participation in a transaction can lead to estoppel, mere non-attendance does not. The trial court did not explicitly rule on estoppel, so this issue also requires reconsideration on remand.
Analysis:
This case significantly clarifies the distinction between the corporate opportunity doctrine and interested director transactions under Maryland corporate law, providing a crucial framework for analyzing director fiduciary duties. By rejecting a per se rule for determining 'interested director' status, the court introduces a more nuanced, objective standard focused on the reasonable expectation of influence on a director's independent judgment. This analysis is vital for corporate governance, guiding directors in navigating conflicts of interest and ensuring proper disclosure and approval processes for related-party transactions, thereby impacting how corporations structure deals involving fiduciaries. Furthermore, the emphasis on requiring clear findings for extraordinary remedies like receivership underscores the high bar for judicial intervention in corporate affairs.
