Searching over 5,500,000 cases.

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.



June 25, 1969

George P. Pappas et al. Plaintiffs
Bernard L. Moss et al. Defendants.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: WORTENDYKE

WORTENDYKE, District Judge:

 The judgment of this Court entered upon its Opinion, reported in 257 F. Supp. 345, was reversed by the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit whose Opinion was filed April 8, 1968 and reported at 393 F.2d 865.

 Plaintiff brought this stockholders' derivative action on behalf of Hydromatics, Inc., a New Jersey corporation, asserting claims under the common law and under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 as amended, 15 U.S.C. § 78aa. Each of the asserted claims is based upon alleged wrongdoing in connection with the sale of 64,534 shares of Hydromatic stock to defendants and others in private placement transactions at a price allegedly so far below the contemporaneous fair value of the shares as to amount to fraud.

 As we understand the Opinion of the Appellate Court it directs this Court to resolve the following questions:


(1) Have the interested directors shown, by clear and convincing proof, that the transaction complained of was honest, fair and reasonable?


(2) Was there a direct violation of Section 10b of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. § 78p(b) and its implementing Rule 10b-5 (17 C.F.R. 240-10b-5)?


(3) Did the Board of Directors cause their corporation to sell its stock to them and others at a fraudulently low price?


(4) If the "independent" stockholders were considered as standing in the place of the defrauded corporate entity at the time of the original resolution authorizing the stock sales was passed, was there such deception in the resolution as to bring it within the proscription of the Rule?


(5) Had Hydromatics standing, albeit derivatively, to maintain this action under Rule 10b-5 in the circumstances of this case?


(6) What was the fair value, on the respective dates of sale, of the shares involved in the criticized transactions?


(7) What misrepresentations of fact appear in the minutes of the directors meeting of December 21 authorizing the sale of the shares and in the proxy material issued to obtain stockholder ratification?

 This action was initially instituted by certain minority stockholders against a New Jersey corporation (Hydromatics), and three of its five officers and directors. Defendants Edward Nathan, and Philip Brooks as Trustee of the Employees' Profit Sharing and Retirement Trust, were joined in the amended and supplemental complaint. When the action was commenced, jurisdiction was predicated upon diversity of citizenship. Subsequent proceedings therein destroyed the diversity but invoked jurisdiction under a federal statute. Jurisdiction of the original single count of the complaint has, despite the destruction of diversity, been retained as pendent to the federal statute jurisdiction. The present defendants were the corporate officers and all of the directors at the time of the transactions in issue. There remains presently as sole plaintiff a Canadian corporation holding 1,700 shares of $1.00 par common stock of the corporation, out of a total of 352,534 shares issued and outstanding.

 The plaintiff sues derivatively in the right of the corporation, and charges the defendant directors with breach of their common law obligations to the corporation and with violation of S.E.C. Rule 10b-5 adopted pursuant to § 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. Recovery is also sought of short swing profits, under § 16(b) of the Act from defendants Moss and Britton; the claim thereunder against Sokol for $900 having been abandoned by stipulation.

 The causes of action alleged are predicated upon the unanimous action of the corporation's board of directors in adopting a resolution on December 21, 1961 authorizing the issuance of 64,534 shares of the authorized, but theretofore unissued and unregistered, shares of the common stock, at a price of $6.00 per share, to themselves and other purchasers under agreements to hold the shares for investment purposes only, but providing that the corporation would cause the shares to be registered within eighteen months following the date of issue.

 At the time of the adoption of the resolution there were issued and outstanding 318,000 shares of capital stock, all of the same class, which had been listed for trading on the American Stock Exchange since 1960. The original issue of Hydromatics' stock to the public was at a price of $10.00 per share.

 During the period from January 1, 1961 to January 16, 1962, the price of the stock of the corporation being traded on the Exchange ranged between a low of 10 3/8 and a high of 24 7/8.

 The corporation was engaged in the business of manufacturing ball valves. Its principal market had been in the military field, but during the year 1960 the corporation developed a new line of ball valves for the civilian market, for entry into which management had estimated that additional capital of $2,000,000 would be required.

 During the fiscal year ended August 31, 1961 the corporation had moved its plant to new leased quarters, in connection with which it incurred some extraordinary expense. Its net sales dropped from $3,621,160 in 1960 to $2,373,361 in 1961. During the 1960-1961 fiscal year, the corporation suffered a loss of approximately $215,000. It had outstanding debts consisting of a long-term unsecured bank loan of $500,000 and a 90-day renewable note in the amount of $350,000. The provisions of the note evidencing the larger of these items of indebtedness obligated the corporation to maintain an excess of its consolidated current assets over its consolidated current liabilities at not less than $650,000, and the ratio of its consolidated current assets to its consolidated current liabilities at not less than 1.75 to 1. The terms of this loan agreement further provided that in the event of the breach of any of the foregoing conditions, the lending bank might put the corporation on written notice of the default, and if the default persisted for thirty days thereafter the loan would become callable. For the fiscal year ended August 31, 1961 the corporation's pre-tax loss was $442,000; which, however, included $117,000 in engineering development costs charged against fiscal 1960-61 operations. Despite a small profit for the first quarter of fiscal 1961-62 ($16,612 after taxes), the corporation was in need of additional capital. It was threatened not only with the calling or requirement of full collateralization of its long-term loan indebtedness, but it had also been refused delivery by an unpaid supplier, preventing the making of deliveries to a principal customer.

 The resolution unanimously adopted by the directors of Hydromatics at the meeting of the board held on December 21, 1961, authorized the corporation to enter into agreements to sell a total of 100,000 common unregistered shares of stock of the company to a limited number of private investors, not in excess of 15, including some small investment companies; the stock to be acquired for investment and not for resale, and to be offered at a price per share of $4.00 below the market price (then approximately $10.00 per share), or at a price of $6.00 per share. The resolution also directed that management agree to purchase similar stock of the company at the same price, to meet the conditions imposed by the prospective private investors, in an aggregate of approximately $152,000, and that in further compliance with the requirements of the private investors the corporation agree that "on or before the expiration of eighteen months from the date of the agreement with them * * * the company prepare and file, at its own cost, such proceedings as may be necessary to cause any shares so issued for investment to be registered pursuant to the Federal Securities Exchange Act of 1933 as amended, to the end that said shares * * * shall be qualified for public sale and distribution." The meeting was informed that one of the directors had discussed the proposed transaction with a prospective private investor who had agreed to purchase $50,000 of investment stock at $6.00 a share "upon the condition that the directors, including the president, would likewise purchase investment stock, and that this investor had about three friends in New York who would also invest on a similar basis." A list of the private investors contemplated by the resolution was to be made up and attached to the minutes of the meeting after they had been written up at a subsequent date. Between December 21, 1961 and January 2, 1962, negotiations were had in behalf of the corporation, through certain of its officers, with various prospective private investors, and written sales agreements, and investment letters between the corporation and the respective private investors were drafted and executed. By the terms of these documents the corporation sold to the investor and the investor purchased from the corporation a specified number of shares of unregistered common stock of the corporation for a price of $6.00 per share. The investor agreed that he would hold these shares for investment and not assign or distribute the same, and the corporation agreed to cause the shares to be registered with the S.E.C. within a period of eighteen months from December 21, 1961; failing which the corporation would pay to the investor a penalty of 1/2 of 1% per share per month during such portion of the next succeeding eighteen months period as the shares remained unregistered.

 A regular meeting of the stockholders of the corporation was noticed for and held on February 8, 1962. The notice of and proxy for that meeting dated January 26, 1962 advised the stockholders that the board of directors would seek stockholder approval of the action of the board in authorizing and consummating the sale of the $6.00 shares. *fn1" The notice also stated that the officers and directors would vote all of their shares, including the $6.00 shares which they had purchased from the corporation, in favor of ratification of the directors' action. The minutes of the meeting indicate that this purported ratification was made by a majority of 251,864 out of the 268,585 shares voted.

 The present action was instituted after the resolution of the board of directors, but prior to the stockholders' meeting, and an application for a preliminary injunction to prevent the holding of the stockholders' meeting was denied by this Court's Order of February 8, 1962.

 Plaintiffs stated their claim at pretrial conference as follows:


(1) Defendants caused the corporation to issue the $6 shares at less than true value, thus defrauding the corporation.


(2) Defendants falsely represented to the corporation that the private investors required that the directors participate in the purchase of the $6 shares; and that the price of $6 per share was prescribed by the private investors.


(3) Defendants falsely represented to the corporation that when the agreements for the purchase of $6 shares were entered into, the average price of Hydromatics stock traded on the American Stock Exchange was approximately $10.50 per share.


(4) Defendants falsely represented to the corporation that they were acquiring the $6 shares for investment and not for public sale, although they knew at the time that some of them were selling previously acquired registered shares on the stock exchange.


(5) Short swing profits were made on stock of the corporation by insiders which are recoverable by the corporation under 15 U.S.C. § 78p(b).

 The contentions of the defendants may be summarized as follows:


(1) Plaintiffs ratified and approved the transactions complained of and thereby waived their right to criticize them.


(2) The Board of Directors had authority to accomplish the criticized transactions and acted in good faith in doing so.


(3) The certificate of incorporation validates the transactions.


(4) The officers and directors were required to participate in the purchase of the $6 shares by the private investors as a condition precedent to participation by the latter therein.


(5) The $6 shares were issued under agreements of the purchasers to hold them for investment and not for resale.


(6) This Court was ousted of diversity jurisdiction by the addition of a party defendant of non-diverse citizenship.


(7) The price of $6 per share at which the registered stock was sold was fair and equitable.


(8) S.E.C. Rule 10(b) (5) is not available to the plaintiffs because they were neither buyers nor sellers of the securities.


(9) Section 16(b) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 imposes no liability upon defendants Sokol, Britton or Moss because none of them made a profit through the purchase or sale of Hydromatics stock held by him for a period of less than six months.

  The aggregate of 64,534 shares of the $6 stock which were issued, some on December 28, 1961 and others on January 2, 1962, were distributed as follows: Purchaser Date of Sale Number of Shares Saul Ludwig December 28, 1961 8,500 shares Harry Moses January 2, 1962 4,000 shares Robert Berkowitz January 2, 1962 3,300 shares Samuel Dorsky January 2, 1962 4,200 shares Seymour Lichtenstein January 2, 1962 4,200 shares State Street Capital Corp. January 2, 1962 7,000 shares United Guaranty Corp. January 2, 1962 3,000 shares Philip B. Brooks, Trustee of Hydromatics Employees Profit Sharing and Retire- ment Trust December 29, 1961 5,000 shares Bernard L. Moss December 28, 1961 8,500 shares Harrison J. Britton December 28, 1961 4,167 shares Leo N. Sokol and Francine Sokol December 28, 1961 1,667 shares Edward Nathan December 28, 1961 2,500 shares Philip B. Brooks December 28, 1961 8,500 shares 64,534 shares


© 1992-2004 VersusLaw Inc.

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.