Robert L. BROWN, and all those similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. The ENSTAR GROUP, INC., Richard J. Grassgreen, Perry Mendel, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 94-6908.
United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.
May 31, 1996.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama. (No. CV 90-A-1268-N),
Before TJOFLAT, Chief Judge, and CARNES, Circuit Judge.*
TJOFLAT, Chief Judge:
This appeal presents the issue of what must be proven to establish “controlling person” liability under section 20(a) of the
I.
In the late 1960s, appellee Perry Mendel founded what became Kinder-Care, Inc. (“KCI“), a publicly held corporation. He served as president of the child-care company until 1985, when he became chairman of the board of directors. In 1987, KCI established Kinder-Care Learning Centers, Inc. (“KCLC“) as a wholly owned subsidiary and Mendel undertook the responsibilities of chairman of KCLC‘s board of directors in addition to his responsibilities as chair of KCI‘s board. Not long after KCLC was formed, the management of KCI began to plan a spin-off of the subsidiary, and in 1988, KCI caused KCLC to conduct a public offering of its common stock, reducing KCI‘s holdings to 87 percent of KCLC‘s common stock. On May 29, 1989, KCI announced plans for a corporate restructuring which would completely separate KCLC from KCI.
Part of this restructuring called for separate boards of directors for the two companies; to that end, Mendel resigned as chairman of KCI‘s board effective May 29, 1989. He remained chairman of KCLC‘s board, however. The uncontroverted evidence is that Mendel had very little contact with KCI‘s board after his resignation, and retained only a 2.6 percent interest in KCI. Richard Grassgreen, who had been president of KCI since 1985, became KCI‘s chairman, and continued to plan for the spin-off of KCLC.
Problems with the proposed restructuring developed, and in September of 1989, KCI‘s board met to discuss alternative plans. Mendel was invited to and did attend this meeting, but no new plan was adopted. At a subsequent meeting, which Mendel did not attend, KCI‘s board adopted a new plan, which it announced on September 22, 1989. The new plan called for the issuance to KCI shareholders of rights to purchase KCI‘s shares of KCLC stock.
In connection with the new restructuring plan, KCI issued a Prospectus to its shareholders on October 4, 1989. The Prospectus was prepared primarily by KCI‘s attorney. There is no evidence that Mendel personally participated in the preparation of the Prospectus. On October 5, Mendel sent a letter to KCLC‘s shareholders, advising them of the restructuring and enclosing a copy of the Prospectus for their information. In the letter, Mendel stated that the Prospectus had been “jointly prepared” by KCI and KCLC. Shortly after the restructuring was completed, KCI changed its name to The Enstar Group, Inc. (“Enstar“).
Count one of appellants’ complaint alleged that, in failing to disclose material facts in the Prospectus, Mendel violated section 10(b) of the Act,
That count further contended that if Mendel was not liable as a controlling person under
The district court granted summary judgment to Mendel, holding that “the facts cannot legally support a finding that Mendel was a “controlling person’ of KCI” at the time of the issuance of the Prospectus. Brown v. Mendel, 864 F. Supp. 1138, 1140 (M.D.Ala.1994). The court also found that Mendel was not personally involved in the alleged fraud, that he owed no duty to disclose any information to appellants in the Prospectus, and that therefore he could not be liable for fraud under Alabama law. Id. at 1147.
II.
We review the district court‘s grant of summary judgment de novo, applying the same legal standards that bound the district court. See Reserve, Ltd. v. Town of Longboat Key, 17 F.3d 1374, 1377 (11th Cir.1994), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 115 S.Ct. 729, 130 L.Ed.2d 633 (1995). In making this determination, we view all evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. See Sammons v. Taylor, 967 F.2d 1533, 1538 (11th Cir.1992). Summary judgment is appropriate in cases in which there is no genuine issue of material fact.
With respect to the first count of their complaint, appellants effectively concede that Mendel is liable for violations of the Act only if he is a “controlling person” within the meaning the Act.3
Every person who, directly or indirectly, controls any person liable under any provision of this chapter or of any rule or regulation thereunder shall also be liable jointly and severally with and to the same extent as such controlled person to any
person to whom such controlled person is liable....
The Eighth Circuit has developed what has become the most widely used test for determining whether a defendant is liable as a controlling person. That court‘s two-prong test requires a plaintiff to establish that “the defendant ... actually participated in (i.e., exercised control over) the operations of the corporation in general ... [and] that the defendant possessed the power to control the specific transaction or activity upon which the primary violation is predicated.” Metge v. Baehler, 762 F.2d 621, 631 (8th Cir.1985) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 1057, 106 S.Ct. 798, 88 L.Ed.2d 774 (1986). Metge‘s test has been cited approvingly by a number of courts of appeals. See, e.g., Harrison v. Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc., 974 F.2d 873, 881 (7th Cir.1992), cert. denied, 509 U.S. 904, 113 S.Ct. 2994, 125 L.Ed.2d 688 (1993); Abbott v. Equity Group, Inc., 2 F.3d 613, 619-20 (5th Cir.1993), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 114 S.Ct. 1219, 127 L.Ed.2d 565 (1994); Sanders Confectionery Prods., Inc. v. Heller Fin., Inc., 973 F.2d 474, 486 (6th Cir.1992), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 1079, 113 S.Ct. 1046, 122 L.Ed.2d 355 (1993); First Interstate Bank of Denver, N.A. v. Pring, 969 F.2d 891, 898 (10th Cir.1992), rev‘d on other grounds sub nom. Central Bank v. First Interstate Bank, --- U.S. ----, 114 S.Ct. 1439, 128 L.Ed.2d 119 (1994).
As the district court noted, our court has not formulated its own test for controlling person liability, nor have we adopted all or part of the Eighth Circuit‘s test. Two decisions of the former Fifth Circuit provide us with guidance in formulating a test, however.4 In 1980, we found that a defendant who did not have the power to control the management of a company or the company itself could not be liable as a controlling person under
The district court devised a test that is a combination of the requirements outlined in Pharo and Thompson. We find the reasoning of the district court persuasive, and so adopt the test set forth in its dispositive order.5 In this circuit, a defendant is liable as a controlling person under
1145 (M.D.Ala.1994). Of course, the plaintiff must also establish that
There is no evidence in the record that Mendel had any power over KCI at the time of the issuance of the Prospectus. Appellants insist that because Mendel was chairman of KCI‘s board of directors at the time KCI decided to restructure, he was a controlling person of KCI. The only fraud alleged, however, is fraud in the preparation and dissemination of the Prospectus. Appellants allege no violation of the Act in connection with the restructuring itself. Thus, for Mendel to be liable as a controlling person in this case, he must have had the power to control KCI at the time the Prospectus was issued. The district court correctly held that Mendel was not a controlling person of KCI, and thus cannot be secondarily liable for KCI‘s alleged securities law violations.
We likewise affirm the district court‘s grant of summary judgment in favor of Mendel on appellants’ count three state-law claims. Under Alabama law, fraud is the “[s]uppression of a material fact which the party is under an obligation to communicate.”
AFFIRMED.