HomeMy WebLinkAbout97-5946 civilRANDALL. FISHEL,
Plaintiff,
Vo
MIDSTATE COMMUNICATIONS
CORPORATION,
Defendant.
:IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
· CUMBE~AND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
:No. 97-5946 CIVIL
:
: CIVIL ACTION- LAW
:
: JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
.IN RE: PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR PREEMPTORY JUDGMENT
.BEFORE BAYLEY, J., GUIDO~ J.
ORDER OF COURT
AND NOW, this ~ '/Ytkday of JULY, 1998, after argument, the Plaintiff s Motion for
Preemptory Judgment is GRANTED. Defendant shall make available to Plaintiff, his agem or
attorney, the share register, books and records of account, and records of the proceedings of the
incorporators, shareholders and directors. The term "books and records of account" shall include,
but not be limited to, the corporation's tax returns. Plaintiff, his agent or attorney, may examine
such documents and/or make copies or extracts therefrom.
Elizabeth G. Dixon, Esquire
Attorney for Plaintiff
By the
Edward E. Guido, J.
Edwin A~D. Schwartz, Esquire
Attorney for Defendant
RANDALL. FISHEL,
Plaintiff,
Vo
MIDSTATE COMMUNICATIONS
CORPORATION,
Defendant.
- IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
· CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
· No. 97-5946 CIVIL
·
·
: CIVIL ACTION- LAW
o
· JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
IN RE: PI,A1NTIFF'S MOTION FOR PREEMPTORY JUDGMENT
BEFORE BAYLEY~ J.~ GUIDO, J.
OPINION AND ORDER OF COURT
Plaintiff, a shareholder and former general manager of Defendant, initiated this mandamus
action seeking access to Defendant's corporate records. On March 18, 1998 Plaintiff filed a
Motion for Preemptory Judgmem. Argument was held before this Court on May 27, 1998 and
the matter is now ready for disposition.
DISCUSSION
The Plaintiff argues that he is emitled to inspect the books and records of Midstate
pursuant to Section 1508 of the Business Corporation Law (15 Pa.C.S.A. § 1508).~ He further
argues that he has met the criteria set forth in Section 1508(c) and is, therefore, entitled to
preemptory judgmem on this issue. We agree.
The standard for granting preemptory judgment is similar to that for granting summary
judgrnem. There can exist no genuine issue of material fact and the petitioner must be entitled to
XSection 1508 reads in relevant part:
(b) Right of inspection.--Every shareholder shall, upon written verified demand stating the
purpose thereof, have a fight to examine, in person or by agent or attorney, during the usual hours
of business for any proper purpose, the share register, books and records of account, and records
of the proceedings of the incorporators, shareholders and directors and to make copies or extracts
therefrom.
No. 97-5946 CIVIL
judgment as a matter of law. Washowich v. McKeesport Mun. Water Auth., 94 Pa. Commw. 509,
512-513, 503 A.2d 1084, 1086 (1986). We believe the Plaintiff has met that standard in the
instant case.
In order to be entitled to relief under Section 1508 of the Business Corporation Law, the
Plaintiff must establish the following:
(2)
(3)
He is a shareholder.
He has complied with the provisions of Section 1508 with regard to the form and
manner of making demand for inspection.
He seeks the inspection for a proper purpose.
The Defendant concedes that Plaintiff is a shareholder.2 Defendant further admits that it received
a verified letter from Plaimiff requesting an inspection of all books and records of the
Corporation.~ The verified letter sets forth Plaintiff's stated purpose "to understand the business
operations and financial status of Midstate Communications Corporation as well as analyze and
understand the nature and extem of my financial interest concerning [the corporation].''4
The Defendant's only objection to Plaintiff's motion for Preemptory Judgment is that
Plaintiff's request is not for a proper purpOse.~ It argues that since Plaintiff has been the general
manager of Defendant he should be well aware of the business operations of the Corporation.
However, Defendant does not address Plaintiff's stated purpose of understanding the financial
2Answer ¶ 3.
~Reply to Pl.'s Mot. for Preemptory J. ¶ 4.
4pl.'s Mot. for Preemptory J. Ex. A.
~Reply to Pl.'s Mot. for Preemptory J. ¶ 5.
No. 97-5946 CIVIL
status of the corporation as well as the value of his financial interest therein. These are both
proper purposes. Friedm_an v. Altoona Pipe and Steel Supply Co., 460 F.2d 1212 (3rd Cir. 1972).
Therefore, we believe that Plaintiff is emitled to the relief requested.
At oral argument, the parties raised an ancillary matter which we will address now in the
interest of judicial economy. The Plaintiff has requested Midstate's income tax returns, but the
Defendant claims they do not fall under the category of"books and records." We believe that
they do. The tax returns may shed fight on the actual value of Midstate and could help make clear
to the Plaintiff the exact nature and value of his interest. Reilly v. Coppertech, Inc., 19 D. & C.
3d 349, 351 (C.P. Lehigh 1981). Therefore, Midstate must make the requested income tax
returns available to the Plaintiff.
The Defendant argues that the Plaintiff had an obligation to pay for part of the preparation
fees for the tax returns. It further argues that since Plaintiff has not satisfied this obligation, he
should not be allowed access to the tax returns. The Defendant does not cite any authority to
support its position. Section 1508 outlines the requirements a shareholder must satisfy in order to
inspect the books and records of the corporation. These requirements do not include the
satisfaction of any alleged debts owing to the corporation. Any claim Defendant might have
against Pla/ntiff for failing to pay a portion of the tax preparation charges is not properly before
US.
AND NOW, this
ORDER
~__~ay of JULY, 1998, after argument, the Plaintiff's Motion for
Preemptory Judgment is GRANTED. Defendant shall make available to Plaintiff, his agent or
No. 97-5946 CIVIL
attorney, the share register, books and records of account, and records of the proceedings of the
incorporators, shareholders and directors. The term "books and records of accoum" shall include,
but not be limited to, the corporation's tax returns. Plaintiff, his agent or attorney, may examine
such documems and/or make copies or extracts therefrom.
By the Court,
/s/Edward E. Guido. J.
Edward E. Guido, J.
Elizabeth G. Dixon, Esquire
Attorney for Plaintiff
Edwin A.D. Schwartz, Esquire
Attorney for Defendant