Patrick v. Allen Case Brief Writing Assignment Paper (Essay Sample)

Student’s Name:
Instructor’s Name:
Course:
Date:
Patrick v. Allen Case Brief
CITATION
The name of the case is Patrick v. Allen. The Plaintiff is Stuart Patrick. He is a former director and current shareholder of Real Property Owners, Inc. (RPO). The Defendants include Herbert Allen along with Nathaniel Kramer, Terry Allen Kramer, Dixon Boardman, Richard Rainwater, and Hans Kertess.
FACTS
The Plaintiff filed an action against the shareholders and directors of Real Property Owners Inc for committing corporate waste by mismanaging Deepdale Golf Club (DGC), their property. Deepdale Golf Club is an elite golf club with a lot of well-known members. It is located in New York. Some members of DGC in the year 1947 formed Real Property Owners, Inc as a real estate company to buy and tract the property that DGC occupied. Real Property Owners leased the property to DGC exclusively and required DGC to pay rent every year that equalled the liability insurance costs and real estate taxes of the property. This agreement went on, with DGC only paying adequate rent that was sufficient for covering the property’s insurance costs and real-estate taxes, which is $330,000.
According to the Plaintiff, the fair market value of yearly rent has to be no less than $6 million, which means that the annual rent has to be raised. Initially, the vast majority of the shareholders of RPO were members of DGC, but diversified over time. The Plaintiff has never been a member of DGC. The Plaintiff pushed for an increased rent and for the members of the board to sell the property, but the board said no. When two of the Defendants on July 2nd 2002 offered to buy shares from the shareholders of Real Property Owners, which the Plaintiff is alleging that they misled the shareholders of Real Property Owners materially, the Plaintiff threatened a court case to compel RPO’s dissolution. The Plaintiff in January 2004 brought this action against RPO’s board members for waste and mismanagement of corporate assets. The motion of the Defendants is to dismiss.
ISSUE
Did the Defendants breach their fiduciary duties to Real Property Owners Inc?
Did the Defendants commit corporate waste when they failed to create a realistic level of rent from DGC, and also when they failed to permit the board members to negotiate a potential sale of the property?
Did the Defendants also violate their fiduciary duties when they tried to buy more shares and embed their illegal scheme?
DECISION
The court’s answer to the questions in the Issue section above is partly yes and partly no. The motion of the Defendants to dismiss is denied partly and granted partly. The court dismisses the claims of the Defe...