United States v. Matthews
United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
787 F.2d 38 (1986)

- Written by Douglas Halasz, JD
Facts
Clark Matthews (defendant) initially served as a staff attorney for Southland Corporation (Southland). In 1972, Southland had a dispute with the New York State Department of Taxation and Finance regarding certain taxes apparently owed by some Southland stores. A few of Southland’s other employees discussed bribing members of the New York State Tax Commission to alleviate the situation. Matthews became involved when one employee approached Matthews about concealing the payment as a lease proposal or a legal fee, which Matthews rejected as improper. Nevertheless, in 1977, the other employees stole money from Southland, though the money was never used for a bribe. Thereafter, Matthews served as Southland’s executive vice president, general counsel, and chief financial officer. In 1981, Southland circulated a proxy statement for an upcoming election of directors, which included Matthews as a candidate. The proxy statement listed the minimum information required by Schedule 14A but did not disclose anything about the bribery discussions or events. The shareholders elected Matthews as a director. Thereafter, in 1985, Matthews was convicted of violating § 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 based on his failure to disclose to the shareholders in 1981 that he had purportedly engaged in a conspiracy to bribe New York public officials. Matthews appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Van Graafeiland, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 814,000 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.