Mueller v. Kraeuter Co., Inc.

25 A.2d 874, 131 N.J. Eq. 475, 1942 N.J. Ch. LEXIS 74, 30 Backes 475
CourtNew Jersey Court of Chancery
DecidedApril 30, 1942
DocketDocket 129/657
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 25 A.2d 874 (Mueller v. Kraeuter Co., Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New Jersey Court of Chancery primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Mueller v. Kraeuter Co., Inc., 25 A.2d 874, 131 N.J. Eq. 475, 1942 N.J. Ch. LEXIS 74, 30 Backes 475 (N.J. Ct. App. 1942).

Opinion

This is a suit to compel the redemption of preferred stock issued by the defendant Kraeuter Co. Complainants own 120 shares out of a total 1,392 shares of the stock outstanding. The stock is entitled to cumulative dividends at the rate of 7 per cent. when and as declared by the directors. The provision for redemption of the stock reads as follows:

"Each and any preferred shares may, by vote of the majority of the board of directors, be redeemed at any time after three years from the date of its issue at the price of $110 per share and shall be redeemed at that price at the expiration of 15 years from the date of its issue."

All the preferred stock has been outstanding more than 15 years. Defendant concedes that upon redemption, it must pay not only the par value of $100 per share and the premium of $10 but also all accumulated dividends. No dividends have been paid since 1930, so that the accumulations amount to more than $77 a share.

The Company asserts that it is not obliged to redeem its stock unless and until its directors accumulate sufficient cash for the purpose, and decide that the corporate enterprise will not be harmed by paying off the preferred stock. The paragraph relating to redemption is found in the certificate of incorporation; it is authorized by the statute (R.S. 14:8-1, etc.) and is part of the contract between preferred stockholders and the corporation.Pronick v. Spirits Distributing Co., 58 N.J. Eq. 97; Meredith v. Zinc Co., 55 N.J. Eq. 211; 56 N.J. Eq. 454; Buckley v.Cuban American Sugar Co., 129 N.J. Eq. 322. The words quoted, that the stock "shall be redeemed" at the expiration of 15 years, must be given some reasonable meaning. Without that clause, the Company has the privilege or option of redeeming the stock. The additional clause can be construed only as creating a positive obligation on the part of the corporation to redeem. "While it is quite desirable that corporations organized under *Page 477 the laws of New Jersey should have ample proper latitude in making readjustments to meet new and unexpected business conditions, it is even more important that the contractual rights of stockholders of all classes of stock shall be upheld by the courts under all circumstances." General Investment Co. v.American Hide and Leather Co., 98 N.J. Eq. 326, 338. That fulfillment of the contract may work injury to common stockholders, is immaterial. Complainants have a right to enforce the redemption of their preferred stock. But the Company's agreement to redeem its stock is subject to the implied limitation that it cannot be enforced at a time when the corporation is insolvent or when redemption would render the corporation insolvent. Since the limitation is implied for the protection of creditors, common stock is not taken into account as a liability. Westerfield-Bonte Co. v. Burnett (Ky.),195 S.W. Rep. 477; Crimmins Pierce Co. v. Kidder, c.,Corp. (Mass.), 185 N.E. Rep. 383; 88 A.L.R. 1122; Koeppler v. Crocker Chair Co. (Wis.), 228 N.W. Rep. 130.

It becomes necessary therefore to consider the condition of the Company. The Company is engaged in manufacturing and also it holds a trifle over 70 per cent. of the capital stock of another corporation, the Kroydon Company. The defendant urges the court to pretend ignorance of the affairs of the Kroydon Company and to consider only that the defendant holds stock of that company which appears on its books at $102,000 and which has no established market value. I cannot adopt that course. The defendant has power to elect for the Kroydon Company such directors as it chooses and through them to govern its business, declare dividends and take any other proper action in order to make Kroydon assets available for creditors and stockholders of the defendant. Of course, the rights of creditors or minority stockholders of the Kroydon Company cannot be ignored or infringed. To grasp the situation, the assets and liabilities of both companies must be considered. A consolidated balance sheet as of December 31st, 1940, here follows: *Page 478

    ASSETS

Cash ................................................. $60,813 Notes and accounts receivable ........................ 190,795 Inventories .......................................... 377,396 Land ................................................. 56,933 Plant and equipment ......................... $726,620 Less depreciation reserve ................. 448,343 ________ 278,277 Dies ................................................. 44,412 Deferred charges and other assets .................... 19,830 __________ $1,028,456 LIABILITIES

Notes payable ........................................ $101,393 Accounts payable ..................................... 62,675 Accrued payables ..................................... 24,326 Reserve for Federal Income Tax ....................... 39,528 Kroydon preferred and minority stock and proportion of surplus ............................................ 129,625 Kraueter preferred stock .................... $139,200 Premium on retirement ..................... 13,920 Cumulated dividends ....................... 90,440 Common stock ................................ 252,000 Surplus for common stock .................... 175,349 ________ Net worth of Kraeuter Co. ........................ 670,909 __________ $1,028,456

No claim is made that the assets are overvalued, or that the condition of the companies is otherwise than as shown in this balance sheet. Indeed, book value of plant and equipment was arbitrarily reduced five years ago by $244,842. It will be observed that the amount required to retire the preferred stock on December 31st, 1940, was $243,560, and that there would remain for the common stock at book values, $427,349.

The consolidated analysis of operations for five years ending December 31st, 1940, is illuminating:

Profit for Kraeuter stockholders .....................   $163,034
Profit Kroydon preferred-minority ............ $82,802
  Less dividends .............................  22,182
                                               _______     60,620
                                                        _________
Undistributed profit .................................   $223,654
Reserve for amortization and depreciation, net .......    143,380
 *Page 479 
Sundry assets liquidated .............................     44,421
Increase in common stock .............................        100
                                                        _________
    Total fund available .............................   $411,555
  Disbursed as follows:
Kroydon preferred stock retired ......................     $1,282
Net liabilities reduced ...................... $26,927
  Less Gairoard gift .........................  24,978
                                              ________      1,949
Increase, notes and accounts receivable ..............     83,977
Increase, inventories ................................    117,512
Net additions to plant and equipment ................. 

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

Related

SV Investment Partners, LLC v. Thoughtworks, Inc.
7 A.3d 973 (Court of Chancery of Delaware, 2010)
Miele v. Commissioner
56 T.C. 556 (U.S. Tax Court, 1971)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
25 A.2d 874, 131 N.J. Eq. 475, 1942 N.J. Ch. LEXIS 74, 30 Backes 475, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mueller-v-kraeuter-co-inc-njch-1942.