Monday, March 30, 2009
Cheff has great facts, although the facts do not really affect the opinion. Holland Furnace, it turns out, was a thoroughly corrupt business that was also losing money. Its means of selling furnaces was to send a crew over to people's houses to "inspect" the furnaces. The inspectors would often find (or perhaps create) problems and then sell the unsuspecting homeowner a new furnace. Arnold Maremont, who owned a muffler business (and a lot of modernist art), took an interest in taking over Holland furnace and started buying up shares.
Maremont had a reputation for buying corporations and then liquidating them. The principals of Holland feared he would do the same to them or at least streamline their business model by selling furnaces the way he sold mufflers -- through retailers -- thus eliminating much of Holland's workforce. Incumbent Holland management decided to use corporate funds to buy back Holland's stock from Maremont, a defensive measure known as greenmail. Dissatisfied shareholders filed a derivative action, claiming the payments were improper because motivated by a desire to maintain control of the corporation rather than by the best interests of its shareholders.
The trial court bought this argument, but its finding was reversed on appeal. Although the trial court applied the right standard, management's conduct in this case was justified, in the court's view, by the real threat to the corporation's well-being posed by the prospect of Maremont's takeover. The court deferred to Holland's management's business judgment as to the long-term best interests of the firm. The deference was misplaced in this instance, because the fraudulent scheme described was discovered, leading to the demise of Holland Furnace.
Cheff v. Mathes
Cheff, who controlled Holland Furnace,
Said, "Pay Maremont greenmail to spurn us."
The court was not peeved
Because Cheff believed
"That Maremont will buy us and churn us."