Corporate Finders & Consultants, Inc. v. Universal Container Corp.

39 A.D.2d 533, 330 N.Y.S.2d 862, 1972 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4822
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedApril 20, 1972
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 39 A.D.2d 533 (Corporate Finders & Consultants, Inc. v. Universal Container Corp.) 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
Corporate Finders & Consultants, Inc. v. Universal Container Corp., 39 A.D.2d 533, 330 N.Y.S.2d 862, 1972 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4822 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1972).

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County, entered on August 20, 1971, unanimously reversed, on the law, and the amended complaint dismissed. Appellants shall recover of respondent $50 costs and disbursements of this appeal. The amended complaint proceeds on two theories. The first is that the plaintiff was damaged by illegal acts of the corporate and individual defendants. It is not alleged that plaintiff was fraudulently induced to acquire its stock by virtue of these acts; and it could not have been, since all of the acts were allegedly committed after plaintiff became a stockholder. Nor is it alleged how plaintiff was damaged thereby. The mere fact that after plaintiff acquired the stock it rose in value and thereafter declined does not show such damage. Lacking such damage, while the acts complained of (violations of General Business Law, § 352-c) might be the subject of suit by the Attorney-General, they are not subject to suit by one not damaged. Insofar as the complaint alleges violations of rule 154 (Code of Fed. Reg., tit. 17, § 230.154) plaintiff does not claim to be a purchaser of such shares and hence neither individually nor as a representative of such purchaser does it have a cause of action. As far as the complaint seeking relief on behalf of the corporate defendant is concerned, no damage to it from the acts of the individual defendants is alleged. In fact, gain to the corporation is asserted. If at some later date these acts, namely, false representations to other companies whose stock was thereby acquired by the corporate defendant, do result in loss to the corporate defendant, that might properly ground an action. Concur'—Nunez, J. P., Kupferman, Murphy, Steuer and Eager, JJ.

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

Related

DISTRICT 65, UAW v. Harper & Row, Publishers, Inc.
576 F. Supp. 1468 (S.D. New York, 1983)
EF Hutton & Co., Inc. v. Penham
547 F. Supp. 1286 (S.D. New York, 1982)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
39 A.D.2d 533, 330 N.Y.S.2d 862, 1972 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4822, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/corporate-finders-consultants-inc-v-universal-container-corp-nyappdiv-1972.