Bordereaux v. Salomon Smith Barney Holdings, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Bordereaux v. Salomon Smith Barney Holdings, Inc.

269 A.D.2d 217, 703 N.Y.S.2d 112, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1513

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedFebruary 15, 2000

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 269 A.D.2d 217 (Bordereaux v. Salomon Smith Barney Holdings, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Bordereaux v. Salomon Smith Barney Holdings, Inc., 269 A.D.2d 217, 703 N.Y.S.2d 112, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1513 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Beatrice Shainswit, J.), entered April 14, 1999, dismissing plaintiffs complaint, and bringing up for review an order, same court and Justice, entered April 8, 1999, which granted defendants’ motion pursuant to CPLR 3211 to dismiss the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs. Appeal from the aforesaid order entered April 8, 1999, unanimously dismissed, without costs, as subsumed within the appeal from the ensuing judgment.

Plaintiff, an HBO & Company (HBO) shareholder, brought this action, allegedly on behalf of similarly situated HBO [218]*218shareholders, to recover damages for defendants’ premature disclosure of a pending merger between HBO and McKesson Corporation. He alleges that, in consequence of defendants’ premature disclosure, HBO’s stock plummeted in value and the proposed merger with McKesson was aborted, resulting in further loss of opportunities and benefits to HBO. The claims asserted by plaintiff, however, clearly belong to the corporation, and, accordingly, may only be asserted derivatively (Abrams v Donati, 66 NY2d 951, 953). Plaintiff has alleged no facts to justify permitting him to proceed with this lawsuit except on the corporation’s behalf (cf., Hammer v Werner, 239 App Div 38), and, in particular, may not, as a shareholder, claim third-party beneficiary status under the consulting agreement between defendant Salomon Smith Barney and HBO, which, by its terms, explicitly stated that defendant investment group’s duty under the engagement was to the corporation alone (see, Fitzpatrick Constr. Corp. v County of Suffolk, 138 AD2d 446, 449-450, lv denied in part and dismissed in part 73 NY2d 807). Thus, any alleged intention to give the shareholders an enforceable right of action is negated (see, Artwear, Inc. v Hughes, 202 AD2d 76, 81-84).

Plaintiff’s additional arguments have been considered and found unavailing. Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Ellerin, Buckley and Friedman, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Beatrice Shainswit, J.), entered April 14, 1999, dismissing plaintiffs complaint, and bringing up for review an order, same court and Justice, entered April 8, 1999, which granted defendants’ motion pursuant to CPLR 3211 to dismiss the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs. Appeal from the aforesaid order entered April 8, 1999, unanimously dismissed, without costs, as subsumed within the appeal from the ensuing judgment.

Plaintiff, an HBO & Company (HBO) shareholder, brought this action, allegedly on behalf of similarly situated HBO [218]*218shareholders, to recover damages for defendants’ premature disclosure of a pending merger between HBO and McKesson Corporation. He alleges that, in consequence of defendants’ premature disclosure, HBO’s stock plummeted in value and the proposed merger with McKesson was aborted, resulting in further loss of opportunities and benefits to HBO. The claims asserted by plaintiff, however, clearly belong to the corporation, and, accordingly, may only be asserted derivatively (Abrams v Donati, 66 NY2d 951, 953). Plaintiff has alleged no facts to justify permitting him to proceed with this lawsuit except on the corporation’s behalf (cf., Hammer v Werner, 239 App Div 38), and, in particular, may not, as a shareholder, claim third-party beneficiary status under the consulting agreement between defendant Salomon Smith Barney and HBO, which, by its terms, explicitly stated that defendant investment group’s duty under the engagement was to the corporation alone (see, Fitzpatrick Constr. Corp. v County of Suffolk, 138 AD2d 446, 449-450, lv denied in part and dismissed in part 73 NY2d 807). Thus, any alleged intention to give the shareholders an enforceable right of action is negated (see, Artwear, Inc. v Hughes, 202 AD2d 76, 81-84).

Plaintiff’s additional arguments have been considered and found unavailing. Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Ellerin, Buckley and Friedman, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

269 A.D.2d 217, 703 N.Y.S.2d 112, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1513, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bordereaux-v-salomon-smith-barney-holdings-inc-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack