The Motor Products Corporation, which was -organized in 1916, was reincorporated under the laws of New York in 1923, with an authorized capital stock of 130,010 shares of no par value, 67,-500 shares of which were common stock and 62,510 preferred. The preferred stock was entitled -to .annual dividends of $4 a share, and could be redeemed at any time, upon thirty days’ 1 potice, at $50 a share and accrued dividends. No dividends could'be paid on the common stock so long as any preferred ¿took 1 remained outstanding. The right to eiect-.Jirectorawas vested in the common stock alone, but, if there was default in the payment . of dividends on the preferred stock for nine months, the right to elect a majority of the, directors passed to the holders of the preferred stock.’ In all other matters both classes of stock had voting power, except in proceedings to increase the number of common shares, with respect to which voting power was vested in the holders of the common stock alone.
At the time of this reineorporation, the company issued $6,750,000 of 6 per. cent, sinking fund debentures, payable in 1943. By January of 1926 it had purchased and retired $3,500,000 of these debentures and all but 30,614 shares of its preferred stock. There were then outstanding 65,203 shares of common stock. In the meantime, plaintiff had acquired 970 shares of the common stock, which he still- owps. ...
In- January of 1926 a- new. corporation was formed under.'the laws..of . New York,, with an authorized- capital of 30,614 shares of preferred stock and 200,000 shares of common stock, both without par value. The new company acquired the name, assets, and good will of the 1923 corporation, paying for the preferred stock of that company an equal number of shares of preferred stock in the new company and for the common stock two shares of. common stock in the new company for one share of the oíd.- The preferred stock, which was redeemable at $60 a share and accrued dividends, was not given any voting power in the affairs of the corporation, but carried cumulative dividends of $5 á share per annum, to be paid in preference to dividends on the common stock. 19,-594 shares of the common stock were set aside to be issued to the employees of the corporation at a price of not less than $30 a share, to be paid for upon such terms as the board of directors might deem proper, directors of the -company who were also employees ' being eligible to acquire the stock. The charter of the 1923 corporation had provided for the issuing of 5,000 shares of common stock to employees of the corporation, but had provided that it could not be issued to an employee who was at the same time a director.
Appellant did not exchange his stock in the old company for stock in the new, but, on behalf of himself and all other holders 1 of common stock (in the old corporation), brought this suit in the state court of Michigan against the new company, its directors,, and certain of its stockholders residing in Michigan, to cancel and set aside the proceedings by whiqh the new company was organized, and to restore, the common stockholders of the old corporation to the position that they had occupied prior to the reineorporation. Injunctions restraining and enjoining .the defendants from proceeding or taking any steps under the charter of the new corporation were asked. A temporary restraining order was issued in the state.court, after which, bn petition- .of the corporation, the suit was removed to the United States court on the ground that there was a separadble controversy between the plaintiff.and the corporation. Motion to remand to the state court was made' and denied, and, on motion of the corporation, the restraining order issued in the state court was vacated and the bill dismissed.
The claim of the .plaintiff is that the directors of' the old company and the defendant stockholders, being'• personally interested in increasing the value of the preferred stock in that company to the detriment of the com *657 mon stockholders, formed the new company so that they could repurchase at a reduced priee the common stock in the old company which they had theretofore sold, and so that their preferred stock in the old ■ company might he exchanged for an equal number of preferred shares in the new company of much greater value, and that, because of this interest of these individual defendants, and their lack of good faith in organizing the new company, the proceedings taken to effect its organization constituted a fraud upon the holders of the common stock of the old company.
The question that was considered by the lower court on the motion to remand was whether there was such a separable controversy between the plaintiff, a citizen and resident of Michigan, and the corporation, a citizen of New York, as entitled the latter to remove the cause to the United States court. The bill prayed primarily “that the court, by its decree, cancel, rescind, and set aside all steps and proceedings of whatsoever name or nature that may have been taken to effect and consummate said plan of reorganization.” As incidental relief it asked that the corporation and the individual defendants be restrained and enjoined: (1) From using the assets of the corporation to retire, redeem, or purchase any of its preferred stock at more than $50 a share; (2) from declaring or paying dividends on the preferred stock in excess of $4 a share per annum; (3) from declaring or paying any dividend on the common stock until all of the preferred stock had been retired; (4) from using the assets of the corporation for retiring, redeeming, and purchasing any of the outstanding 6 per cent, debentures; (5) from accepting any further stock for exchange or transfer under the reincorporation; (6) from taking further steps of any nature to effect or consummate the plan of reorganization; (7) from selling or disposing of any of the 19,-594 shares of common stock set aside for sale to employees; and (8) that the court restore all the stockholders of the corporation (presumably the corporation of 1923) to the positions they occupied prior to the reincorporation. The relief sought against the individual defendants was that they bo enjoined from selling or disposing of any of their stock in the Motors Product Corporation (presumably the 1926 corporation); that they account for all profits which they had realized from the reineorporation; that they be required to pay to plaintiff the damages that he had sustained because of their unlawful acts in creating it; and that their stock be subjected to the payment of any such damages awarded.
It was said in Geer v. Mathieson Alkali Works,
It is contended for appellant that the case presented in the bill is one in which there is a contest between classes of stockholders (the common stockholders on one hand and the preferred stockholders on the other), in which the corporation is presumptively indifferent, as in Taylor & Co. v. Southern Pacific Co. (C. C.)
On the motion to dismiss a pertinent inquiry was whether the organization of the new company had been consummated. The bill shows that it was consummated January 28, 1926, by the filing of a certificate of incorporation in the office of the secretary of state for New York. The substance of what appellant asked therefore was that this corporate entity be annulled, and that the 1923 corporation, whieh had ceased to exist (section 22 of the Stock Corporation Law of New York [Consol. Laws, c. 59]), he resurrected. The court below held that the bill did not warrant the granting of that relief. In support of that ruling, appellee contends that a court, state or federal, sitting in one state has no power to interfere with the internal affairs of a corporation organized and existing under the laws of another state. Appellant contends that the relief sought was within the general jurisdiction of the court, and, the directors, officers, and business of the corporation being within its territorial jurisdiction, neither policy nor expediency required that the court deny the relief on the ground that the internal affairs of the corporation would be affected.
Questions that suggest themselves, in view of the character of the suit,' akin to quo warranto, are whether sueh a suit could be maintained in the state of New York by any one except the legal representative of the state, and, if so, whether a court sitting in another state and entertaining sueh a suit has the power to enter a decree in personam which in effect nullifies a power granted by the state of New York, and whether and in what manner obedience to sueh a decree could be enforced.
We
pass these questions, however, and treat the action as one having the more limited aim of administering the internal affairs of a foreign corporation, accepting the general rule without deciding its applicability to this ease, that, where the parties are before the court and the res beyond its jurisdiction, decrees in personam may be entered and obedience thereto enforced against the person, the decree, of course, not operating upon the res. Louisville & Nashville Railroad Co. v. Western Union Telegraph Co. (6 C. C. A.)
Assuredly an action to annul a corporate charter or to determine the validity of a corporate organization has to do with the internal affairs of the corporation. Sueh an action should not be entertained by a court sitting in another state from that in which the corporation was organized except, perhaps, upon a definite showing of fraud in the very creation of the corporation itself. In American Seating Co. v. Bullard (6 C. C. A.)
As to the action of the stockholders and directors who effected the reincorporation, it suffices, we think, to say that, at a stockholders’ meeting to reorganize a corporation, a stockholder may ordinarily vote his stock in his own interest without committing a fraud that affects the validity of the reorganization. It may he said, however, that the wisdom of exchanging stock of the new corporation, having a dividend rate of five dollars a share and redeemable at sixty, for stock in the old corporation, with a dividend rate of four dollars a share and redeemable at fifty, is not apparent to us, in view of the fact that funds available for retiring the old stock were used to retire debenture obligations hearing interest at the rate of 6 per cent, per annum. Hence it may be that this feature of the reincorporation was for the benefit of. the preferred stockholders and not in the best interest of the common stockholders; and yet a majority of the common stockholders holding a greater number of shares of that stock than all of the outstanding preferred stock voted for the consummation of that plan. Whether they acted wrongfully or not, a question we do not decide, neither in that nor any other act alleged was there such fraud in the creation of the corporation as would justify this court in passing upon the question as to whether it should he dissolved.
The decree dismissed the bill as to all defendants. The motion to dismiss was directed solely to the corporate defendant. To that extent the decree is affirmed, hut it is set aside as to the individual defendants and the case reinstated on the docket as to them. It follows, of course, from what we have said, that the suit will not be entertained as to any relief sought against those defendants in so far as it might involve interference with the internal affairs of the corporation. It may, however, be entertained against them as to any relief in law or equity not involving such interference with respect to which we naturally refrain from expressing an opinion.
Notes
Among the authorities cited on this subject are Wilder et al. v. Virginia, etc., & Iron Co. et al. (C. C.)