Continental Sec. Company v. Belmont

New York Court of Appeals · 1912 · Corporations

206 N.Y. 7 (1912)

Updated August 22, 2026

CorporationsShareholder derivative actionsDemand requirementDirector authorityRatificationderivative suitshareholder demandboard of directors

Facts

The complaint alleged that Interborough's directors unanimously resolved to issue 15,000 shares of Interborough stock to persons designated by August Belmont & Company in exchange for certain railroad stocks, bonds, and compensation for services. Plaintiffs alleged that, except for the actual cost of the acquired stocks and bonds, the stated consideration was a pretense and subterfuge intended to conceal a gift or bonus of Interborough stock to Belmont, Luttgen, and their nominees. Each plaintiff purchased his stock after the challenged transaction. Before suit, the owner of the stock now held by plaintiffs sent a written demand to the corporation and its officers and directors requesting that suit be brought and offering indemnity; after no response and no action, this suit was commenced.

Issue

Did the complaint in this shareholder representative action adequately state a cause of action where the plaintiffs acquired their shares after the challenged transaction, did not offer to return the property received by the corporation, did not allege nonassent by predecessors in title, and did not make demand on the body of stockholders? More specifically, was demand on directors sufficient, or was demand on stockholders also required before suit?

Rule

To maintain a representative action, a stockholder must allege (1) a cause of action in favor of the corporation with the same detail as if the corporation sued, and (2) facts entitling the stockholder to sue in place of the corporation. A stockholder must demand relief from the board of directors, unless such demand would clearly be useless. Demand on stockholders is required only if the subject matter is within the stockholders' immediate control, direction, or power of confirmation; if stockholders have no adequate power to remedy the wrong, such demand is unreasonable and unnecessary. Illegal acts or acts against public policy cannot be ratified by stockholders, unlike certain merely voidable acts.

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Buffalo, directors of Lake Erie Components, Inc. approved issuing 8,000 shares to two insiders in exchange for "consulting services" and a small package of assets allegedly worth far less than the stock issued. Shareholder Nina Patel filed a representative suit alleging the corporation suffered major loss, and she pleaded the transaction in the same factual detail the corporation itself would use if suing the insiders, along with facts showing she had first demanded that the board bring suit and the board failed to act.

If the defendants argue the complaint should be dismissed because Nina is suing on a corporate claim that belongs to the corporation, how should the court rule?

Explanation. A representative complaint must allege two things: first, a cause of action in favor of the corporation with the same factual detail as if the corporation itself sued; second, the facts entitling the shareholder to sue in place of the corporation. Because Nina pleaded both, dismissal is improper. (Derived from Continental Sec. Company v. Belmont (1912).)