From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Hahn v. Stewart

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Mar 23, 2004
5 A.D.3d 285 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004)

Summary

rejecting former shareholder and CEO's personal claim for reputational harm arising as a result of insider trading scandal since such a claim pled "a wrong to the corporation only, for which a shareholder can only sue derivatively"

Summary of this case from Abate v. Fifth Third Bank

Opinion

3215, 3216.

Decided March 23, 2004.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Helen Freedman, J.), entered February 20, 2003, dismissing the complaint pursuant to an order, same court and Justice, entered February 14, 2003, which, in a purported class action by a shareholder against the corporation's chairman and chief executive officer, granted defendant's motion to dismiss the action for lack of standing and failure to state a cause, unanimously affirmed, without costs. Appeal from said order, unanimously dismissed, without costs, as subsumed in the appeal from the judgment.

Thomas R. Grady for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Barbara Moses for Defendant-Respondent.

Before: Tom, J.P., Andrias, Ellerin, Gonzalez, JJ.


Plaintiff alleges that defendant breached her fiduciary duty to the corporation's shareholders by reason of her part in an insider trading scandal, resulting in damage to the corporation's primary asset, defendant's name, reputation and associated goodwill, and damage to the proposed class members in the form of diminution in the value of their shares. The complaint was properly dismissed on the ground that such allegations plead a wrong to the corporation only, for which a shareholder can only sue derivatively, "though he loses the value of his investment" ( Abrams v. Donati, 66 N.Y.2d 951, 953). "Courts have repeatedly held that an allegation of diminution in the value of stock based on a breach of fiduciary duty gives rise to a derivative action only" ( Hart v. General Motors Corp., 129 A.D.2d 179, 183, n2, lv denied 70 N.Y.2d 608, citing, inter alia, Bokat v. Getty Oil Co., 262 A.2d 246, 249 [Del]). No grounds exist for granting leave to replead where plaintiff sold his shares before instituting this action (Business Corporation Law § 626[b]).

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.


Summaries of

Hahn v. Stewart

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Mar 23, 2004
5 A.D.3d 285 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004)

rejecting former shareholder and CEO's personal claim for reputational harm arising as a result of insider trading scandal since such a claim pled "a wrong to the corporation only, for which a shareholder can only sue derivatively"

Summary of this case from Abate v. Fifth Third Bank
Case details for

Hahn v. Stewart

Case Details

Full title:CONRAD K. HAHN, ETC., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. MARTHA STEWART…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department

Date published: Mar 23, 2004

Citations

5 A.D.3d 285 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004)
773 N.Y.S.2d 297

Citing Cases

Druck v. Macro Fund

The rule is the same in New York: when a plaintiff claims that a corporate officer "breached her fiduciary…

Ziglin v. Hommel

, such allegation would give rise to a shareholder's derivative action only. Hahn v Stewart, 5 AD3d 285 (1st…