Kaplan v. Centex Corporation

284 A.2d 119, 1971 Del. Ch. LEXIS 143
CourtCourt of Chancery of Delaware
DecidedOctober 22, 1971
StatusPublished
Cited by66 cases

This text of 284 A.2d 119 (Kaplan v. Centex Corporation) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Chancery of Delaware primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Kaplan v. Centex Corporation, 284 A.2d 119, 1971 Del. Ch. LEXIS 143 (Del. Ct. App. 1971).

Opinion

DUFFY, Chancellor:

This is a derivative action by a stockholder of Lomas & Nettleton Financial Corporation (L. & N.) for its benefit. Defendants are two corporations with which L. & N. was involved in joint ventures, Centex Corporation (Centex) and Heftier Construction Company (Heftier), and various individuals with an interest in one or more of the three corporations. This is the decision after trial on the merits.

A.

Centex and Heftier are construction companies which invest in and develop large real estate projects. L. & N. is in the business of providing mortgage banking, direct lending and other financing to builders and developers. At the time of the transactions about which plaintiff complains, *121 Heltler owned 1.4% of L. & N.’s common stock; defendant Herbert Heftier, president and majority shareholder of the Heftier Company, owned 8.02% and Centex owned 10.6% of that stock. The combined holdings thus amounted to about 20% of L. & N.’s shares.

The first cause of action involves joint ventures in land development undertaken by L. & N. with Centex and Heftier in Puerto Rico. Plaintiff contends that L. & N. received nothing or, alternatively, an inadequate consideration when it transferred its equity interests to Heftier and Centex. In the second cause of action, asserted against Centex only, plaintiff contends that L. & N. paid an excessive amount in settlement of a contract obligation involving land development in Texas. All defendants deny these charges.

I first consider the Puerto Rican projects.

B.

The land in Puerto Rico some 2,500 acres, was owned by four separate entities: three joint ventures and a trust created under an instrument dated August 12, 1963 (the Trust). The joint ventures, which began about 1961, were Sabana, Salinas (sometimes referred to together as “Carolina”) and Bayamon. The Trust and each of the ventures were owned 40% by Heftier, 40% by Centex and 20% by L. & N. 1 Centex and Heftier each paid for their respective interests $125,000 in Bayamon, $175,000 in Salinas, and $50,000 in Sabana. They paid nothing for each interest in the Trust. L. & N. provided financing to the ventures and to Centex and Heftier for their purchases in them. It received equity interests because it was the lender in the transactions; in short, the 20% equities were part of the consideration for the financing. The circumstances under which L. & N. parted with these interests are the basis for this first cause of action.

The ventures had financial troubles, there were management problems. And L. & N. had its own financial crisis arising from liquidity requirements. L. & N. became concerned about the size of its Puerto Rican commitment, which by 1964 amounted to some $10,000,000. 2 Both it and Cen- *122 tex were dissatisfied with Heftler’s management of the projects. About the end of 1964 reorganization of all of the interests was discussed by the joint ventur-ers. Negotiations were had between Cen-tex and Heftier looking toward a separation of their respective interests. Heftier offered to buy Centex’s 40% interest in all three ventures for $2,000,000 (and a release to Centex and its principal stockholders of some $28,000,000 in loans which they had guaranteed). That is a key point of evidence in plaintiff’s claim that the interest of L. & N. (20%) was worth $1,000,-000. On February 11, 1965 Heftier made an offer of $500,000 to L. & N. for its entire equity interest. That was not accepted. Heftier then offered $575,000 cash and a note for $100,000 payable out of profits. L. & N. was willing to accept that offer but Heftier was unable to obtain the necessary financing to buy the interest of either Centex or L. & N.

Centex and L. & N. then began negotiations looking toward realignment of all interests. Defendants’ evidence shows that on July 30, 1965 a tentative agreement was reached under which L. & N. would exchange its 20% interest in Bayamon for an increase from 20% to 25% of its interest in Carolina, annd give Centex an option to purchase its interest in the latter venture for $750,000. That figure was suggested by L. & N.’s president and accepted by Cen-tex. Defendants contend, and their evidence shows, that in the summer of 1965 a basic plan was agreed to by the three principals ; it was this:

(a) Heftier would surrender its interest in Carolina; Centex and L. & N. would surrender their respective interests in Bayamon;
(b) Heftier would become the sole equity holder in Bayamon;
(c) Centex would acquire a 75% equity interest in Carolina;
(d) L. & N. would acquire a 25% equity interest in Carolina. 3

First Boston and The Chase Manhattan Bank provided new financing to make the realignment possible.

During the week of October 15, 1965 the principals, the lenders and counsel met in San Juan, Puerto Rico to close on the reorganization. Essentially, the plan agreed upon was implemented. L. & N. surrendered its interest in Bayamon, it was released from and indemnified against debts of Bayamon, and the demand obligations owed it by Centex, Heftier annd Bayamon were paid.

The Centex-L. & N. relationship at the end of that week in San Juan and what occurred thereafter are significant, but I lay those matters aside and now consider certain of the legal arguments.

(1)

Plaintiff alleges that Centex and Heftier dominated and controlled L. & N. but in his brief he says only that they had “representatives” on the Board of Directors and therefore should be held to the same standard of care (fiduciary) as directors. He argues indeed that they should be held to a higher standard than other directors because they dealt with L. & N. Centex and Heftier contend that they did not control L. & N. and that plaintiff failed to prove that they did, either singly or in combination with others.

A plaintiff who alleges domination of a board of directors and/or control of its affairs must prove it. Blish v. Thompson Automatic Arms Corporation, 30 Del.Ch. 538, 64 A.2d 581 (1948). Stock *123 ownership alone, at least when it amounts to less than a majority, is not sufficient proof of domination or control. Mayer v. Adams, 39 Del.Ch. 496, 167 A.2d 729; aff’d 40 Del.Ch. 94, 174 A.2d 313 (1961). Compare Issner v. Aldrich, 254 F.Supp. 696 (D.Del.1966).

“Control” and “domination” are here used in the ordinary meaning of the words and they may be exercised directly or through nominees.

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

Related

In re Match Group, Inc. Derivative Litigation
Court of Chancery of Delaware, 2024
Halperin v. Richards
E.D. Wisconsin, 2024
Dow v. Casale
31 Mass. L. Rptr. 92 (Massachusetts Superior Court, 2013)
Starr International Co. v. Federal Reserve Bank
906 F. Supp. 2d 202 (S.D. New York, 2012)
Pamela Brennan v. Concord Efs, Inc.
686 F.3d 741 (Ninth Circuit, 2012)
Scheidt v. DRS Technologies, Inc.
36 A.3d 1082 (New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 2012)
Johnson v. Glassman
950 A.2d 215 (New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 2008)
Gatz v. Ponsoldt
925 A.2d 1265 (Supreme Court of Delaware, 2007)
Kenney v. Koenig
426 F. Supp. 2d 1175 (D. Colorado, 2006)
U.S. Securities & Exchange Commission v. Talbot
430 F. Supp. 2d 1029 (C.D. California, 2006)
In Re Walt Disney Co. Derivative Litigation
907 A.2d 693 (Court of Chancery of Delaware, 2005)
Amadeus Global Travel Distribution, S.A. v. Orbitz, LLC
302 F. Supp. 2d 329 (D. Delaware, 2004)
Feldheim v. Sims
Appellate Court of Illinois, 2003

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
284 A.2d 119, 1971 Del. Ch. LEXIS 143, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kaplan-v-centex-corporation-delch-1971.