Ostrowski v. Avery
Connecticut Supreme Court
703 A.2d 117 (1997)
- Written by Robert Cane, JD
Facts
Avery Abrasives, Inc. (Abrasives) manufactured cutting wheels. Abrasives manufactured cutting wheels smaller than five inches in diameter until Raymond Avery directed Abrasives to focus on larger wheels, with a concentration on wheels 20 inches or more in diameter. Several years after this decision, Craig Avery (defendant), an elected director of Abrasives, and Michael Passaro (defendant), a supervisor for Abrasives, sought permission from Craig’s father, Raymond, to manufacture small cutting wheels while continuing in their respective capacities at Abrasives. Raymond consented to this request, at which time Craig and Passaro formed International Small Wheels (ISW). ISW manufactured cutting wheels four inches or less in diameter. The minority shareholders of Abrasives were not informed of ISW’s activities. ISW operated for about 13 years, comingling its business with that of Abrasives in several ways. Craig and Passaro bought wheels from and sold wheels to Abrasives. They conducted business while present at Abrasives. They shared customers with Abrasives. They also hired Abrasives employees. The minority shareholders of Abrasives brought a lawsuit claiming ISW usurped a corporate opportunity to which Abrasives was entitled. The trial court did not impose liability on ISW for usurpation of a corporate opportunity, reasoning that Raymond had consented to ISW’s formation. The minority shareholders appealed to the Connecticut Supreme Court.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Peters, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 791,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,200 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.