Speed v. Transamerica Corporation

United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1956 · Corporations

235 F.2d 369 (1956)

Updated August 22, 2026

Corporationscontrolling stockholderRule 10b-5material nondisclosurefraud and deceitredemptionconversion rightsliquidation preferences

Facts

Axton-Fisher had Preferred, Class A, and Class B shares, with Class A entitled under the charter to redemption at $60 plus accrued dividends, conversion into Class B on a one-for-one basis before redemption, and a two-to-one participation right over Class B in liquidation after preferred priorities and accrued dividends. Transamerica was Axton-Fisher's majority stockholder and in 1942 made a public offer to buy Class A and Class B shares, while in 1943 Axton-Fisher's board, at Transamerica's instigation, called the Class A shares for redemption. The plaintiffs alleged that Transamerica knew Axton-Fisher's tobacco inventory had greatly appreciated and secretly planned to capture that value for itself through merger, dissolution, liquidation, or sale, but failed to disclose those material facts to public stockholders. Axton-Fisher was later liquidated in 1944, and the stockholders claimed damages based on the value they lost by selling or redeeming before liquidation.

Issue

Whether the evidence supported the district court's finding that Transamerica deceptively concealed the appreciated value of Axton-Fisher's inventory and its plan to capture that value for itself, thereby incurring liability to the minority stockholders. If so, whether Class A damages should be measured by their charter's two-to-one liquidation participation right or instead by the amount they would have received had a disinterested board called the Class A shares for redemption and the holders converted them into Class B before liquidation; and whether prejudgment interest should be 2% or 4%, and whether unredeemed Class A holders should receive interest on the redemption price.

Rule

Where a controlling stockholder secretly plans to capture appreciated corporate asset value for itself and fails to disclose material facts affecting stock value when purchasing minority shares or causing their redemption, it may be liable in damages for fraud, deceit, and Rule 10b-5 nondisclosure. In fixing damages for a class of stock with liquidation, redemption, and conversion provisions, the charter must be read realistically as a whole: if a disinterested board could and would have called the stock for redemption before liquidation, and holders would have converted into another class, damages are measured by that converted position rather than by a windfall liquidation preference. Prejudgment interest should reflect a fair rate, and delay that benefits the defendant does not justify reducing that rate against plaintiffs.

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.

Granite Valley Foods, a Kentucky corporation based in Louisville, has a controlling stockholder, North Shore Holdings. North Shore knows Granite Valley's warehoused cocoa inventory has suddenly become far more valuable and has quietly developed a plan to liquidate the company after first buying minority shares in a tender offer mailed to stockholders in Ohio and Indiana, but it discloses neither the appreciation nor the plan.

If minority stockholders sell into the offer at the old market price and later sue, which is the best answer?

Explanation. The majority opinion supports liability where a controlling stockholder knows material facts affecting stock value, secretly plans to capture that value for itself through liquidation or a similar transaction, and fails to disclose those facts while acquiring minority shares. The wrong is the deceptive concealment of both the asset appreciation and the controller's plan, not the absence of a charter-based disclosure clause, a formal liquidation vote, or a comparison to book value.