Shell v. Hensley

United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1970 · Corporations

430 F.2d 819 (5th Cir. 1970)

Updated August 22, 2026

CorporationsSecurities FraudDerivative SuitsRule 10b-5Section 10(b)derivative standingcorporate controlsale of control

Facts

Plaintiffs, shareholders of Alabama National, alleged that Shell and others defrauded the corporation over several years, including by causing unsecured or inadequately secured loans to related entities and by arranging for Shell to sell control of Alabama National to the Arizona Group for a premium payable only to him. They further alleged that, to finance that control premium, Alabama National was caused to enter a sham nine-year employment contract with Shell and to purchase securities and other property from NSI at excessive prices, with NSI then using the money to pay Shell. The complaint also alleged misleading proxy materials and other mailings that concealed the true nature of the employment contract, Shell's duty to account, and the true value of the assets purchased. At the pleading stage, the court treated these allegations as true.

Issue

Whether minority shareholders could sue derivatively under Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 on behalf of their corporation based on the corporation's allegedly fraudulent purchase of securities, and whether the complaint stated a Rule 10b-5 claim even without an express allegation that the corporation's directors were deceived. More specifically, the court had to determine the extent to which deception must be alleged where the other party to the transaction allegedly controlled or conspired with those directing the corporation.

Rule

A shareholder has standing to bring a derivative Rule 10b-5 action if he alleges that the corporation purchased or sold securities in connection with fraudulent activity; the shareholder need not personally be a statutory purchaser or seller. To state a Rule 10b-5 claim on behalf of the corporation under the circumstances alleged here, it is not necessary to expressly allege that the corporation's directors were deceived; it is enough to allege that, through control or conspiracy, the corporation was caused to engage in a securities transaction and was prevented from obtaining the informed judgment and fair dealing the rule's disclosure requirements are designed to secure.

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.

Lena Ortiz owns 2% of Blue Mesa Casualty, a New Mexico insurer based in Albuquerque. She files a derivative suit alleging that Blue Mesa was induced by insiders and an outside financier to buy preferred shares of Desert Crest Holdings at a wildly inflated price so the seller could divert the proceeds to pay for a control-transfer arrangement.

Does Lena have standing to pursue a derivative Rule 10b-5 claim on Blue Mesa's behalf?

Explanation. The majority held that a shareholder may sue derivatively under Rule 10b-5 without personally being a purchaser or seller, so long as the complaint alleges that the corporation purchased or sold securities in connection with fraudulent activity. Here, Blue Mesa allegedly purchased preferred shares at an inflated price as part of a fraudulent scheme, which is sufficient for standing at the pleading stage.