Quimbee logo
DMCA.com Protection Status

In re Lifeguard Industries, Inc.

37 B.R. 3 (1983)

Case BriefRelatedOptions
From our private database of 35,600+ case briefs...

In re Lifeguard Industries, Inc.

United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Ohio

37 B.R. 3 (1983)


Lifeguard Industries, Inc. (Lifeguard) (debtor) was an aluminum-siding manufacturer founded by Louis and Joseph Guttman. As of 1980, Lifeguard’s board of directors consisted of Joseph’s son Fred Guttman; Joseph’s daughter Shirley Onie; and Joseph’s widow, Marion Guttman. All three owned shares of Lifeguard, and Fred was also Lifeguard’s president, secretary, and chief operating officer. Lifeguard began suffering financial troubles and filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in 1982. In 1983, Fred caused Lifeguard to file a proposed reorganization plan that left Fred and Lifeguard’s vice presidents of marketing and manufacturing, Louis Epstein and James Wendell, as the only shareholders. Shirley and Marion sought to protect their interests by electing new directors at a shareholder meeting. The bankruptcy court allowed the shareholder meeting to proceed but required the newly elected board to seek approval of any proposed changes to Lifeguard’s management personnel or operating procedures. Following the shareholder meeting and vote, Lifeguard’s new directors were Shirley, Gary Sycalik, and John Hevener. The new directors sought the court’s approval to change Lifeguard’s management structure by ousting Fred and installing Sycalik as president, Hevener as secretary, and Shirley as treasurer. The new directors proposed leaving Epstein and Wendell, who were both highly qualified, in their same employment positions. However, Epstein and Wendell expressed that they would likely leave Lifeguard if Fred were ousted. None of the new directors had any industry knowledge or knowledge of Lifeguard’s business, none of them planned to invest their own assets to assist Lifeguard during the bankruptcy, and none of them had a plan for operating Lifeguard. Additionally, Hevener and Sycalik expected to be paid for their services and also proposed paying for a crisis-management team of consultants. In seeking approval of the proposed changes, the new directors argued that Fred had mismanaged Lifeguard to the point that it was no longer a viable company. However, evidence before the bankruptcy court suggested that Fred had been trying hard to turn around Lifeguard’s business, including cutting operating costs, cutting his own salary, and refocusing Lifeguard’s operations on vinyl siding. Lifeguard was expected to show a profit based on those efforts. The bankruptcy court considered the arguments and evidence and decided whether to allow the new directors to take over Lifeguard’s day-to-day operations.

Rule of Law


Holding and Reasoning (Newsome, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 618,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

    Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

    Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee

Here's why 618,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 35,600 briefs, keyed to 984 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.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 618,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 35,600 briefs - keyed to 984 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership