Wolfensohn v. Madison Fund, Inc.

Supreme Court of Delaware · 1969 · Corporations

253 A.2d 72 (Del. 1969)

Updated August 22, 2026

Corporationscreditor rightscorporate separatenessstock-for-stock exchangedebenturesincome certificatescreditor vs stockholdercontractual rights

Facts

Railroad had long-standing financial difficulties and in 1958 exchanged its preferred stock for a package consisting of a $100 Income Debenture, a $110 Charge on Income Certificate, and one share of common stock per preferred share. The Debentures and Certificates were payable only from income, were subordinated to substantial senior debt, and no payments had ever been made on them. Because Railroad lacked cash and could not diversify on its own, Industries was formed as a holding company and Railroad common stock was exchanged share-for-share for Industries common stock. Plaintiffs, as holders of the Debentures and Certificates, claimed the exchange impaired their rights and sought to invalidate it or impose Railroad's obligations on Industries.

Issue

Did the stock-for-stock exchange placing Railroad under Industries impair the contractual rights of Debenture and Certificate holders so as to justify voiding the exchange or treating Industries as having assumed Railroad's obligations? More specifically, were those holders in a position analogous to stockholders whose rights were harmed by the reorganization, or were they merely creditors whose contractual rights remained unchanged?

Rule

Whether the holder of a particular instrument is a stockholder or a creditor depends on the terms of the contract creating the instrument. If a corporate act is performed in accordance with law and causes no present legal injury to a creditor, it is treated as an independent and distinct act, and the separate corporate entities will not be disregarded to impose the corporation's debts on another entity.

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.

Lakeview Transit Co., based in Cleveland, issued instruments called 'Earnings Notes' that promise to pay holders a stated principal amount only from company earnings. In the same recapitalization, former preferred shareholders also received one share of common stock for each preferred share, and the agreement stated that the common shares were issued to preserve voting rights.

If holders of the Earnings Notes later challenge a lawful stock-for-stock acquisition on the theory that they were treated like ignored equity owners in a reorganization, how should a court most likely classify them?

Explanation. The governing rule is that whether an instrument holder is a stockholder or creditor depends on the terms of the contract creating the instrument. A promise to pay a stated amount out of income creates a debt relationship, and when separate common shares are expressly issued to preserve voting rights, stockholder status attaches to those shares, not to the debt instrument.