Howe v. Goldcorp Investments, Ltd.
United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit
946 F.2d 944 (1991)
- Written by David Bloom, JD
Facts
Reginald Howe (plaintiff) was an American shareholder of Goldcorp Investments, Ltd. (Goldcorp) (defendant). Goldcorp was a Canadian corporation. Its shares traded on Canadian stock exchanges, not United States stock exchanges. Goldcorp had limited contacts with the United States. It sold shares to United States residents only if the shares were bought in Canada. It sent annual reports and similar materials, including to American shareholders, but as part of general worldwide mailings. It distributed dividends to shareholders wherever shareholders lived, not just to the United States. Goldcorp employees occasionally communicated with and responded to questions from American stockbrokers. Goldcorp’s American shareholders, including Howe, owned nearly one-third of its shares. Goldcorp acquired two companies that owned assets in the United States and had some American shareholders and thus had to comply with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission. Goldcorp’s shares fell dramatically after it acquired the two companies. Howe sued Goldcorp in the United States for fraud, misrepresentation, breach of fiduciary duty, and alleged violations of securities laws and other statutes. Except for Howe, no other resident of the United States had any relevant knowledge about these allegations. The district court dismissed the action based on forum non conveniens. Howe appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Breyer, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 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.