Konstand v. Prime Group Realty Trust

2011 Ill. App. Unpub. LEXIS 2356 (2011)

From our private database of 46,300+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Konstand v. Prime Group Realty Trust

Illinois Appellate Court
2011 Ill. App. Unpub. LEXIS 2356 (2011)

Facts

Prime Group Realty Trust (PGRT) (defendant) was a real estate investment trust organized in Maryland that issued common stock and preferred stock. PGRT’s articles of incorporation entitled preferred shareholders to receive fixed quarterly dividends and prohibited the payment of common-share dividends unless PGRT had paid all preferred dividends owed. Dean Konstand (plaintiff) acquired PGRT preferred shares in October 2004. In July 2005, Prime Office, a wholly owned subsidiary of Lightstone, acquired all of PGRT’s common shares. At that time, PGRT’s board of directors consisted of PGRT’s president, three Lightstone corporate officers, and three independent members. Further, PGRT had a cash balance of $70 million. During the same month, the board of directors paid $30 million as a common dividend distribution to Prime Office. In January 2006, PGRT obtained loans totaling $113 million. The following month, PGRT paid a second dividend of $76 million to Prime Office. In 2008, PGRT paid a third dividend of $15 million to Prime Office. Konstand subsequently filed a derivative claim against PGRT alleging that the three common dividend distributions constituted a breach of fiduciary duty through corporate waste and bad faith. Konstand supported his claim with Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) filings in 2011 regarding the control of PGRT, the fact that most of the board members were not independent, and PGRT’s operating losses and insufficient cash resources. After affording Konstand a chance to amend the complaint, the trial court found that Konstand failed to allege sufficient facts to show that the dividend payments caused PGRT to become insolvent in violation of Maryland’s dividend statute and therefore dismissed Konstand’s claim with prejudice. Konstand appealed and argued that the dividend distributions constituted a breach of fiduciary duty whether or not the statute was violated.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Sterba, 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 811,000 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 811,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 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 811,000 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
  • 46,300 briefs - keyed to 988 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