ILNews

Court finds man abandoned shareholder derivative claim

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Because a man “expressly and unambiguously” abandoned his shareholder derivative claim when responding to a court demand to specify his legal claims, he cannot now assert that claim on appeal, the Indiana Court of Appeals ruled.

Don Morris and Randy Coakes sued BioSafe Engineering in March 2010 arguing they had equitable interests and contractual rights in BioSafe and they could bring a shareholder derivative action. Morris claimed he helped create and owned BioSafe, but the articles of organization for the company filed with the secretary of state indicate that Brad Crain and Richard Redpath were the sole members.

The trial court ordered Morris and Coakes to file with the court a document stating the legal theories they assert against the defendants; the document indicated that their theories of recovery were breach of contract, unjust enrichment and estoppel. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of BioSafe and other defendants.

The case made it to the Court of Appeals in 2012 and the judges reversed summary judgment, rejecting the procedure employed by the trial court. BioSafe filed another motion for summary judgment, which was granted, leading to the instant appeal.

Morris argued that his claims against the company include a shareholder derivative action, but the Court of Appeals rejected his argument.

“In sum, Morris expressly and unambiguously abandoned his shareholder derivative claim in August of 2011 when, in response to the trial court’s demand that he specify his legal claims, Morris admitted to the court that his claims were for breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and equitable estoppel. This court acknowledged Morris’ abandonment of his shareholder derivative claim in Morris I, and nothing in our prior opinion nullified Morris’ express admission to the trial court. Both the trial court and BioSafe relied on and had the right to rely on Morris’ admission,” Judge Edward Najam wrote in Don Morris v. Biosafe Engineering, LLC, 32A04-1306-PL-321.

“Morris was, therefore, estopped from asserting a claim he had abandoned. Thus, Morris’ exclusive theory on appeal — that the trial court erred when it entered summary judgment because he has a legitimate shareholder derivative claim against BioSafe — is not grounds to deny
BioSafe’s motion for summary judgment.”

 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Hail to our Constitutional Law Expert in the Executive Office! “What you’re not paying attention to is the fact that I just took an action to change the law,” Obama said.

  2. What is this, the Ind Supreme Court thinking that there is a separation of powers and limited enumerated powers as delegated by a dusty old document? Such eighteen century thinking, so rare and unwanted by the elites in this modern age. Dictate to us, dictate over us, the massess are chanting! George Soros agrees. Time to change with times Ind Supreme Court, says all President Snows. Rule by executive decree is the new black.

  3. I made the same argument before a commission of the Indiana Supreme Court and then to the fedeal district and federal appellate courts. Fell flat. So very glad to read that some judges still beleive that evidentiary foundations matter.

  4. KUDOS to the Indiana Supreme Court for realizing that some bureacracies need to go to the stake. Recall what RWR said: "No government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size. Government programs, once launched, never disappear. Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we'll ever see on this earth!" NOW ... what next to this rare and inspiring chopping block? Well, the Commission on Gender and Race (but not religion!?!) is way overdue. And some other Board's could be cut with a positive for State and the reputation of the Indiana judiciary.

  5. During a visit where an informant with police wears audio and video, does the video necessary have to show hand to hand transaction of money and narcotics?

ADVERTISEMENT