Book Title
10th Edition
ISBN: 9781337605656
Author: CROSS
Publisher: CENGAGE L
expand_more
expand_more
format_list_bulleted
Question
Chapter 18, Problem 3RE
Summary Introduction
Case summary: Person DB was a director in company FBF which owned a string of fitness clubs in Mexico. DB owned 15 percent of the total stock of the company and was also working as a tanning technician at one of the fitness clubs. According to the finance report, company FBF was facing financial loss. Person ML discussed terminating the tanning operation. Person DP, who was one of shareholders disclosed that person DB, owned stock in the company S, from which company FBF purchased required tanning equipment. DB and MV owning 37 percent of FBF and also holding shares of the company S, voted to replace ML from the board of directors.
To find: The theory that will be used by person DB as his defense.
Expert Solution & Answer
Trending nowThis is a popular solution!
Students have asked these similar questions
Subject: acounting
homas Persson and Jon Nokes founded Smart Inventions, Inc., to market household consumer products. The success of their first product, the Smart Mop, continued with later products, which were sold through infomercials and other means. Persson and Nokes were the firm’s officers and equal shareholders. Persson was responsible for product development, and Nokes was in charge of day-to-day operations. In time, they became dissatisfied with each other’s efforts. Nokes represented the firm as financially “dying,” “in a grim state, . . . worse than ever,” and offered to buy all of Persson’s shares for $1.6 million. Persson accepted.On the day that they signed the agreement to transfer the shares, Smart Inventions began marketing a new product—the Tap Light. It was an instant success, generating millions of dollars in revenues. In negotiating with Persson, Nokes had intentionally kept the Tap Light a secret. Persson sued Smart Inventions, asserting fraud and other claims. Under what principle…
Parker and Phillips incorporated P & P Resorts Inc., a closely held Texas corporation. Parker was president and Phillips served as vice president and director for operations. Parker owned 40% of the stock, while Phillips owned 60%. Both men met with CTA, a group of travel agents from California to discuss special deals for booking groups into the resorts. After the first meeting, all contracts with CTA were made by Phillips, who learned that there was a good chance that CTA would award the contract to P&P Resorts. Phillips incorporated Travel Brokers and was its sole owner. Phillips used P& P Resort’s time to work on proposals for Travel Brokers and managed to keep negotiations with CTA a secret from Parker. When Parker discovered Phillip’s actions, he filed suit against him for wrongfully taking a corporate opportunity from P &P Resorts. Phillips claimed that he did not take a corporate opportunity because Travel Brokers did not have the financial ability to…
Knowledge Booster
Similar questions
- Muller, a shareholder of SCM, brought an action against SCM over his unsuccessful negotiations to purchase some of SCM’s assets overseas. He then formed a shareholder committee to challenge the position of SCM’s management in that suit. To conduct a proxy battle for management control at the next election of directors, the committee sought to obtain the list of shareholders who would be eligible to vote. At the time, however, no member of the committee had owned stock in SCM for the six-month period required to gain access to such information. Then Lopez, a former SCM executive and a shareholder for more than one year, joined the committee and demanded to be allowed to inspect the minutes of SCM shareholder proceedings and to gain access to the current shareholder list. His stated reason for making the demand was to solicit proxies in support of those the committee had nominated for positions as directors. Lopez brought this action after SCM rejected this demand. Will Lopez succeed?arrow_forwardKlinicki and Lundgren, both furloughed Pan Am pilots stationed in West Germany, decided to start their own charter airline company. They formed Berlinair, Inc., a closely held Oregon corporation. Lundgren was president and a director in charge of developing the business. Klinicki was vice president and a director in charge of operations and maintenance. Klinicki, Lundgren, and Lelco, Inc. (Lundgren’s family business), each owned one-third of the stock. Klinicki and Lundgren, as representatives of Berlinair, met with BFR, a consortium of Berlin travel agents, to negotiate a lucrative air transportation contract. When Lundgren learned of the likelihood of actually obtaining the BFR contract, he formed his own solely owned company, Air Berlin Charter Company (ABC). Although he continued to negotiate for the BFR contract, he did so on behalf of ABC, not Berlinair. Eventually BFR awarded the contract to ABC. Klinicki commenced a derivative action on behalf of Berlinair and a suit against…arrow_forwardThe client seeks advice concerning the actions of the majority stockholder in a small corporation. The majority stockholder owns 58 percent of the stock, and the client and another shareholder together own 42 percent. The majority stockholder controls the board of directors and is president of the corporation. He refuses to allow the corporation to issue any stock dividends. Until recently, the client and the other minority stockholder worked for the corporation. Last month, the majority stockholder fired the client and the minority stockholder. What sections of Am. Jur. 2d discuss this topic?arrow_forward
- Merrill Lynch employed Post and Maney as account executives. Both men elected to be paid a salary and to participate in the firm’s pension and profit-sharing plans rather than take a straight commission. Thirteen years later, Merrill Lynch terminated the employment of both Post and Maney. Both men began working for a competitor of Merrill Lynch. Merrill Lynch then informed them that all of their rights in the companyfunded pension plan had been forfeited pursuant to a provision of the plan that permitted forfeiture in the event an employee directly or indirectly competed with the firm. Is Merrill Lynch correct in its assertion? Why or why not?arrow_forwardJoseph, a shareholder, wishes to sell his shares and has received an offer from Peter, who is not a shareholder, to buy shares well above the original price. Melissa, an existing shareholder, is adamant that she should be allowed to purchase Joseph’s shares at the original price. Joseph is the only shareholder who currently holds less than 5% of the shares of Spades Limited Advise Karen and Melissa.arrow_forwardEiffel Towers Ltd, a listed company, was a builder and property developer specialising in projects in Melbourne’s central business district. It has five directors. Giscard (Eiffel Towers Ltd’s managing director) and Henri (the company’s chief finance officer), were the only executive directors on the board. The others, all experienced business people, were non-executive directors and attended the monthly board meetings. Over the past two years, Eiffel Towers Ltd’s financial position had worsened. Apart from Henri, the directors were unaware that Eiffel Towers Ltd’s liabilities vastly exceeded its assets and that it had difficulties paying its subcontractors and suppliers on time. Henri made sure the other directors were kept in the dark about this and did not give them meaningful or accurate financial information. The directors were satisfied with Henri’s false assurances that the company’s finances were satisfactory. Several months ago at an Eiffel Towers Ltd’s board meeting Giscard…arrow_forward
- Duties and Liabilities of Corporate Directors Discuss the extent to which a director should be held liable for breaching his or her duty of care if he or she simply neglects to read materials regarding issues to be voted on at board meetings or neglects to show up for these meetings. 2. Should such a person be equally or less liable than a director who knowingly votes to approve an illegal or harmful act?arrow_forwardBernard Koch was president of United Corporation, a closely held corporation. Koch, James Trent, and Henry Phillips made up the three-person board of directors. At a meeting of the board, Trent was elected president, replacing Koch. At the same meeting, Trent attempted to have the salary of the president increased. He was unable to obtain board approval of the increase because, although Phillips voted for the increase, Koch voted against it. Trent was disqualified from voting by the corporation’s charter. As a result, the directors, by a two-to-one vote, amended the bylaws to provide for the appointment of an executive committee composed of three reputable businesspersons to pass upon and fix all matters of salary for employees of the corporation. Subsequently, the executive committee, consisting of Jane Jones, James Black, and William Johnson, increased the salary of the president. Will Koch succeed in an appropriate action against the corporation, Trent, and Phillips to enjoin them…arrow_forwardSmith, a shareholder, filed suit against the board of directors of a corporation in which he had owned stock. Smith claimed that he and other shareholders had not received top dollar for their shares when their corporation had merged with another. Consequently, they sought either a reversal of the merger or payment from the directors to make up for their losses. The directors, Smith argued, had violated their duty of due care because they based their decision on a 20-minute speech by the CEO. Also, the directors had not even looked at the merger documents, let alone studied them. Furthermore, the directors had not sought any independent evaluation by outside experts. For their part, the directors argued that because their decision was made in good faith and was legal, they were protected by the business judgment rule. Were the directors correct?arrow_forward
- Sayre learned that Adams, Boone, and Chase were planning to form a corporation for the purpose of manufacturing and marketing a line of novelties to wholesale outlets. Sayre had patented a self-locking gas tank cap but lacked the financial backing to market it profitably. He negotiated with Adams, Boone, and Chase, who agreed to purchase the patent rights for $5,000 in cash and two hundred shares of $100 par value preferred stock in a corporation to be formed. The corporation was formed and Sayre’s stock issued to him, but the corporation has refused to make the cash payment. It has also refused to declare dividends, although the business has been very profitable because of Sayre’s patent and has a substantial earned surplus with a large cash balance on hand. It is selling the remainder of the originally authorized issue of preferred shares, ignoring Sayre’s demand to purchase a proportionate number of these shares. What are Sayre’s rights, if any?arrow_forwardPritchard & Baird was a reinsurance broker. A reinsurance broker arranges contracts between insurance companies so that companies that have sold large policies may sell participations in these policies to other companies in order to share the risks. Charles Pritchard, who died in December 2011, controlled Pritchard & Baird for many years. Prior to his death, he brought his two sons, Charles Jr. and William, into the business. The pair assumed an increas ingly dominant role in the affairs of the business during the elder Charles’s later years. Starting in 2008, Charles Jr. and William began to withdraw from the corporate account ever-increasing sums that were designated as “loans” on the balance sheet. These “loans,” however, represented a significant misappropriation of funds belonging to the corporation’s clients. By late 2013, Charles Jr. and William had plunged the corporation into hopeless bankruptcy. A total of $12,333,514.47 in “loans” had accumulated by October of that…arrow_forwardWallace owned 50.25 percent of the shares of Capital Credit & Collection Service (CCCS), with Jones and Gaarde each owning 24.8 percent. Those three shareholders also constituted the board of directors. At a directors’ meeting, a majority of the directors—that is, Jones and Gaarde—removed Wallace as president and elected Jones president and Gaarde secretary of the corporation. The following month at a shareholders’ meeting at which Gaarde was absent, Wallace voted his majority of the shares to remove Jones and Gaarde as directors of the corporation and to replace them with Roberts and Smith. Under the Oregon Business Corporation Act, a valid shareholders’ meeting required a quorum of shares equal to a majority of the shares unless a different quorum is provided in the articles of incorporation. CCCS, however, in its corporate bylaws, had a requirement that a quorum for a shareholder meeting was equal to 100 percent of the shares. Wallace had agreed to the bylaw as a shareholder and…arrow_forward
arrow_back_ios
SEE MORE QUESTIONS
arrow_forward_ios
Recommended textbooks for you
BUSN 11 Introduction to Business Student EditionBusinessISBN:9781337407137Author:KellyPublisher:Cengage Learning
Essentials of Business Communication (MindTap Cou...BusinessISBN:9781337386494Author:Mary Ellen Guffey, Dana LoewyPublisher:Cengage Learning
Accounting Information Systems (14th Edition)BusinessISBN:9780134474021Author:Marshall B. Romney, Paul J. SteinbartPublisher:PEARSON
International Business: Competing in the Global M...BusinessISBN:9781259929441Author:Charles W. L. Hill Dr, G. Tomas M. HultPublisher:McGraw-Hill Education
BUSN 11 Introduction to Business Student Edition
Business
ISBN:9781337407137
Author:Kelly
Publisher:Cengage Learning
Essentials of Business Communication (MindTap Cou...
Business
ISBN:9781337386494
Author:Mary Ellen Guffey, Dana Loewy
Publisher:Cengage Learning
Accounting Information Systems (14th Edition)
Business
ISBN:9780134474021
Author:Marshall B. Romney, Paul J. Steinbart
Publisher:PEARSON
International Business: Competing in the Global M...
Business
ISBN:9781259929441
Author:Charles W. L. Hill Dr, G. Tomas M. Hult
Publisher:McGraw-Hill Education