Waggoner v. Snow, Becker, Kroll, Klaris & Krauss

991 F.2d 1501 (1993)

From our private database of 47,000+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Waggoner v. Snow, Becker, Kroll, Klaris & Krauss

United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
991 F.2d 1501 (1993)

KS

Facts

In 1982, Thomas Waggoner (plaintiff) cofounded STAAR Surgical Company (Staar). He worked as Staar’s chief executive officer and served on the board of directors (the board) until 1989. Waggoner hired Elliot Lutzker as Staar’s counsel in 1986. Lutzker continued as Staar’s counsel after he joined Snow, Becker, Kroll, Klaris & Krauss (the law firm) (defendant). In July 1987, Staar obtained a line of credit from the Bank of New York (BONY). BONY determined that the line of credit was under-collateralized and over-advanced. BONY warned Staar that the loans would end and foreclosure proceedings would begin unless Staar’s officers personally guaranteed the loans. At a board meeting in December 1987, Waggoner agreed to guarantee the BONY debt in return for voting control of Staar. At the meeting, Lutzker stated that he represented Staar. Days later, the board adopted a resolution transferring shares of class-A preferred stock to Waggoner in exchange for his guarantee of the loans, agreeing that the preferred stock could be converted into two million shares of common stock if Waggoner’s guarantees remained outstanding after January 16, 1988. At the board’s direction, Lutzker prepared the required corporate documents, including the share-conversion terms. The board failed to find alternative financing, so Waggoner activated the conversion terms. A year later, the board voted to end Waggoner’s employment and board service. Waggoner asked Lutzker if he was able to remove the other directors and create a new board. Lutzker said he was not aware of anything preventing Waggoner from doing so. Waggoner then dismissed and replaced the board. In response, the board filed suit in Delaware to maintain control of Staar and to enforce Waggoner’s removal. The Delaware Supreme Court determined that the board lacked authority to create a class of preferred stock with voting rights and that Waggoner’s attempted stock conversion was invalid. Waggoner lost his position at and voting control over Staar. Subsequently, Waggoner filed a malpractice lawsuit claiming that Lutzker and the law firm had breached their duty of care when Lutzker negligently drafted the Staar corporate documents and negligently advised Waggoner on replacing the board. The district court granted summary judgment to the law firm, and Waggoner appealed.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Sneed, 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 899,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

  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.

Here's why 899,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 47,000 briefs, keyed to 994 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 899,000 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
  • 47,000 briefs - keyed to 994 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