Honigman v. Green Giant Co.
United States District Court for the District of Minnesota
208 F. Supp 754 (1961)
Facts
Edith Honigman (plaintiff) owned 1,570 shares of Class B stock in Green Giant Company (defendant). In 1960, a recapitalization plan was submitted to the voting Class A shareholder and to the nonvoting Class B shareholders. Pursuant to the plan, Class A and Class B shares would be exchanged for a new class of voting common stock. Each Class A share would be exchanged for 10 shares of convertible common stock, each of which would convert annually into 100 shares of the new voting stock. Each Class B share would be exchanged for one share. The recapitalization plan was approved by 100 percent of Class A shareholders and over 92 percent of Class B shareholders. Honigman filed suit on behalf of herself, all Class B shareholders, and derivatively on behalf of the corporation. Honigman argued that the issuance of the premium stock to Class A shareholders was unfair, illegal, and void because no consideration had been given by the Class A shareholders in return for the convertible shares and the allotment of shares to the Class A shareholders were unfair.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Nordbye, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 705,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 44,300 briefs, keyed to 983 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
