McDonnell v. Birrell

196 F. Supp. 496, 1961 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5097
CourtDistrict Court, S.D. New York
DecidedJuly 17, 1961
StatusPublished
Cited by6 cases

This text of 196 F. Supp. 496 (McDonnell v. Birrell) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
McDonnell v. Birrell, 196 F. Supp. 496, 1961 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5097 (S.D.N.Y. 1961).

Opinion

PALMIERI, District Judge.

Preliminary Statement

On July 5, 6 and 7,1961, the first cause of action in this derivative suit was tried before me. The trial followed many months of dedicated effort by plaintiff’s counsel to expose a bold and outrageous corporate swindle. The issues now presented for final adjudication relate to plaintiff’s prayer for the return and cancellation of one million fraudulently issued shares of Doeskin Products, Inc. (Doeskin). Although this huge bloc of shares represented control of Doeskin, no consideration was ever received by the corporation for any of the shares involved in this issue.

Much of the background of this litigation has been detailed at earlier stages in the proceedings when plaintiff’s efforts to obtain interlocutory relief were vigorously opposed by defendants and their representatives. See Ferguson v. Birrell, D.C.S.D.N.Y.1960, 190 F.Supp. 506, affirmed sub nom. Ferguson v. Tabah, 2 Cir., 1961, 288 F.2d 665. During the prior proceedings, plaintiff’s contentions were assailed as speculative and without evidentiary basis. Defendants’ averments, it is now conceded, were replete with misstatements, significant omissions and distortions designed to conceal from the court the audacious scheme which defendants were undertaking and, indeed, hoped to accomplish with the judicial approval of the state court.

At the time of this trial, certain events had occurred which considerably altered the posture of the defense. Defendants Birrell, Workman, Tabah, Smiley, Sehnider, Kurlander, Leznoff, Charles Holdings, Inc., Pan American Investment Corp., and Synta Corp., along with others, had been indicted by a Federal grand jury in this district for violations of stock fraud and mail fraud provisions of the United States Code. Among other things, the indictment covers the fraudulently issued shares which are the subject of the plaintiff’s first cause of action. The defendants who testified at this trial, Tabah, Smiley and Schnider, have entered pleas of guilty to counts of the indictment and are now awaiting sentence.

A further significant event was the permanent stay of a derivative action which had been pending in the New York State Supreme Court for New York County based upon a complaint similar to that filed by the plaintiff here. It is no longer disputed that defendants intended [498]*498to use the state court action as an instrument to render saleable their fraudulently acquired Doeskin shares. The plan was to obtain court approval for a proposed settlement pursuant to which one-quarter of the million shares would be returned to Doeskin’s treasury while defendants’ title to the remaining three-quarters would be secured. Cf. 190 F. Supp. at page 509, n. 10, supra. The permanent stay of the state court action was effected with the consent of counsel for the plaintiffs therein. Upon the directions of this court and the New York State Supreme Court, New York County, the escrowee of the 250,000 Doeskin shares that were offered in settlement of the state court action, deposited those shares with the Clerk of this Court to be held in his custody pending the disposition herein. See Order of April 21, 1961 entered in Weinberger v. Bradley, Sup., 210 N.Y.S.2d 658; Orders of December 31, 1960, April 21, 1961 and May 18, 1961, entered in Ferguson v. Birrell, 60 Civ. 4007 (S.D.N.Y.).

Faced with this changed situation, defendants Smiley and Schnider gave testimony here which laid bare the nature of the scheme in which they were participants. These witnesses made it abundantly clear that “the master swindler,” Lowell M. Birrell, had in fact engineered the fraudulent issue to keep “his tentacles on Doeskin”. Indeed, “as much as it defies the imagination,” Birrell was able to profit financially by siphoning funds out of the Doeskin treasury even while he was a fugitive in Brazil. See 288 F.2d at page 674, supra. Birrell’s principal associate in this venture was Harry Workman, a Canadian defendant, who, like Birrell, has chosen to remain outside this jurisdiction. Defendants Smiley and Schnider testified to the manner in which they fronted for Workman who actually held the lead rein of Doeskin and controlled 800,000 of the million fraudulently issued shares up until the time fiscal agents for the corporation were appointed by this court. The testimony also disclosed the sham roles played by the Canadian corporation, Charles Holdings, Inc. and the Liechenstein corporation, Synta Corporation Reg. Trust, companies formed for the purpose of perpetuating the larceny contrived by Birrell and Workman.

Smiley and Schnider, having admitted that they acted solely as nominees or “fronts” for Workman, no longer claim any interest in the Doeskin shares and have not resisted the remedy sought by plaintiff. The final decree with respect to the 800,000 Workman shares, i. e., those which appeared to have been held by Charles Holdings, Inc. and Synta Corp. will be filed herewith.

Defendant Tabah, on the other hand, continues to claim the status of a bona fide purchaser. Unlike Smiley and Schnider, Tabah appears to have paid “hard cash” for the 200,000 shares purchased by his family holding company, Pan American Investment Corp. Tabah asserts that it was not until he had paid for the shares and had embarked upon his duties as president of Doeskin that he learned of Workman’s controlling interest and the larcenous nature of the prior transactions.

Based upon the trial testimony I have grave doubts as to Tabah’s credibility and his ability to establish his status as a purchaser in good faith. As the record now stands, it appears highly improbable that, at the time of his purchase, Tabah failed to suspect the validity of the shares and to make appropriate inquiries with respect thereto. See 288 F.2d supra, at page 673, note 12. Moreover, Tabah’s admitted attempts to conceal the truth from both this court and the state court in his effort to accomplish a settlement of the matter highly favorable to himself and others privy to the larcenous scheme, are hardly consistent with his description of himself as an honest man, sorely deceived and cheated by his business associates. Nevertheless, and despite the substantial payments received by Tabah through his incumbency of the Presidency of Doeskin, I am mindful of the fact that Tabah appears to have parted with $183,000 for the Doeskin shares and that he did not have the assistance [499]*499of counsel at this trial. Although I do not condone Tabah’s failure to obtain representation after adequate and repeated notice of the probable time of this trial, I prefer not to enter final judgment with respect to his shares until he has been afforded a further opportunity to engage and consult with counsel. Accordingly, I have given Tabah a period of thirty days from the conclusion of the trial to appear through counsel and to submit proof which might offset the strong showing against him made by plaintiff on the present record.

See Findings of Fact and Conclusion of Law, and Judgment filed herewith.

Findings of Fact

1. Plaintiff is the trustee in reorganization of Equitable Plan Company, an industrial loan corporation organized under the law of California and currently a debtor in a reorganization proceeding under Chapter X of the Bankruptcy Act, 11 U.S.C.A. § 501 et seq., pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California, Central Division. This action was instituted pursuant to an order of the bankruptcy court. See Order No.

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

Related

McDonnell v. American Leduc Petroleums, Ltd.
456 F.2d 1170 (Second Circuit, 1972)
United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit
456 F.2d 1170 (Second Circuit, 1972)
In re Swan-Finch Oil Corp.
313 F.2d 140 (Second Circuit, 1963)
McDONNELL v. TABAH
297 F.2d 731 (Second Circuit, 1961)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
196 F. Supp. 496, 1961 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5097, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mcdonnell-v-birrell-nysd-1961.