Opinion ID: 1642012
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Claims of the Tricare Stockholders

Text: The contract upon which the Tricare stockholders base their third-party complaint and their cross-claim is a contract between two corporate entitiesReLife and Tricare. This interim management agreement obligates ReLife to make up any negative cash flow items arising out of the operation of the Brookwood Tricare facility. The individual stockholders were not parties to this transaction. [2] Any action based on that contract must be brought in the name of the corporate entity, Tricare. An action was brought in the name of Tricare, and that action has been settled, as evidenced by the release signed by the bankruptcy trustee acting on behalf of Tricare and the Joint Stipulation and Motion for Dismissal signed by the bankruptcy trustee for Tricare and the attorney for ReLife. It has long been settled that `[a] corporation, just like an individual, must enforce its own rights and privileges.' Ramsey v. Taylor, 567 So.2d 1325, 1327 (Ala. 1990), quoting Russell v. Birmingham Oxygen Service, Inc., 408 So.2d 90, 93 (Ala.1981). Although George Warren, Sr., George Warren, Jr., and John Sumner are stockholders in Tricare, this fact, standing alone, does not give them standing individually to assert claims based on an alleged harm to the corporation or to recover corporate property. See Ramsey, supra; McDonald v. U.S. Die Casting & Dev. Co., 541 So.2d 1064, 1068 (Ala.1989); Green v. Bradley Constr., Inc., 431 So.2d 1226, 1229 (Ala.1983); Stevens v. Lowder, 643 F.2d 1078, 1080 (5th Cir.1981). It appears that the corporation, Tricare, is the only real party in interest and the only entity that can pursue any action arising out of the enforcement of the contract. This action has been pursued and Tricare and ReLife have settled their differences. Therefore, the trial court abused its discretion in not dismissing the third-party complaint and the cross-claim against ReLife, based on Rule 17(a), Ala.R.Civ.P.