Lewis v. S. L. & E., Inc.
United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
629 F.2d 764 (1980)
The Lewis family controlled two corporations, S. L. & E., Inc. (SLE) and Lewis General Tires, Inc. (LGT). Donald Lewis (plaintiff) owned stock in SLE but not LGT. He held no corporate leadership role. Richard Lewis, Alan Lewis, and Leon Lewis, Jr. (defendants) were stockholders and directors at both companies and were also officers of LGT. In 1962, Donald, Richard, Alan, Leon, and their two sisters entered into a shareholders’ agreement which stated that if any of the six did not own any LGT stock on June 1, 1972, they would convey their SLE shares to LGT at book value. SLE’s only significant asset was the property on which LGT operated its business. Under a 10-year lease agreement which expired in 1966, LGT paid $1,200 per month in rent and covered all expenses except real estate taxes, which SLE paid. After the lease expired, LGT continued to occupy the space and pay the $1,200 monthly rent, which totaled $14,400 annually. Prior to 1972, when his SLE shares were to be sold to LGT, Donald determined that SLE’s book value was lower than it ought to be. He sought SLE’s books and records, but Richard, then SLE’s president, refused. Donald brought a derivative action against Richard, Alan, and Leon Jr. for waste of corporate assets in their capacities as SLE directors. Donald argued that the amount SLE received in rent was too low. LGT intervened in the case and demanded specific performance from Donald on the shareholder agreement. At trial, testimony from Richard, Alan, and Leon indicated that they had generally ignored SLE’s separate existence and believed SLE existed to benefit LGT. Expert testimony suggested that fair rental was between $20,000 and $35,000 annually. The trial court held that Donald had the burden to show that the lease was unfair, and that he had not carried that burden. The court ruled in favor of Richard, Alan, and Leon, and also in favor of LGT in its claim for specific performance of the shareholder agreement. Donald appealed.
Rule of Law
Holding and Reasoning (Kearse, C.J.)
What to do next…
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 97,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read our student testimonials.
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. Read more about Quimbee.
Here's why 170,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 13,800 briefs, keyed to 187 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.