Opinion ID: 2199033
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Compensation to Jan Bata.

Text: After the Chancellor had filed his opinion upon the merits, a hearing was held on the form of the final decree. It developed that Jan Bata asserted a right to establish an interest in or lien upon the Leader shares arising out of his services, or the services of his counsel with respect to such property. Pursuant to the Chancellor's order, Jan on June 9, 1958, filed his claim. It recited the fact that after Thomas' death Jan, with the consent of the plaintiffs, had administered the business. It averred: Accepting, arguendo, for the purposes of this application, the determination herein made that defendant was not owner, defendant administered the enterprise above stated as its trustee . (Emphasis supplied.) Jan prayed for an order awarding compensation for his services in respect of the property in suit as a condition to delivery of the property to the plaintiffs. The right to compensation was challenged by the plaintiffs. The Chancellor, after a careful review of the matter, determined that Jan was entitled to compensation for his services to the enterprise. This holding was predicated like Jan's claim, upon the finding or assumption that Jan was a trustee or confidential agent, who had rendered the heirs outstanding services by the successful administration of the Bata enterprise. However, the Chancellor conditioned the granting of leave to file the claim upon Jan's depositing with the Court his minority shares. The Chancellor said: I believe that the granting of permission to defendant to file his claim should be so conditioned that defendant will not possibly receive a duplicate benefit or, by retaining the property, maintain a position which is incompatible with his claim for compensation. Jan, however, declined to deposit the shares, and on September 15, 1958, the Chancellor dismissed his claim. We think that the claim was rightly dismissed, but we think that the dismissal should have been without prejudice for the following reasons: The claim was predicated, as we have shown, upon the assumption that Jan's control of the enterprise, and his holding and control of the minority shares, were those of a quasi-trustee. The Chancellor's requirement for deposit of the minority shares was clearly predicated on the same assumption. But this is only an assumption. It is not to be regarded as settled notwithstanding the implication to that effect in the Chancellor's opinion in this case. Until it is settled, the right to compensation is not established. Jan now claims to own the minority shares outright. He is entitled to litigate that claim. It is, of course, possible that he may establish it. If, after litigation, Jan emerges (for illustration) as a forty per cent owner of the whole enterprise, it might well be argued that he would be entitled to no compensation  or at least to an amount much smaller than that to which he would be entitled if he had no interest in the Bata enterprise. Even if compensation is allowable in the latter case, is it a matter for the Court of Chancery, or simply a claim at law against the Bata corporations or Leader? Again, Jan might make good his claim as to some shares and fail as to others, because different results might be obtained in different jurisdictions. We express no opinion upon any of these questions. We deal only with the timeliness of the claim. Since Jan was unwilling voluntarily to surrender all his minority shares (except the Dutch shares), and since the ownership of those shares is not settled, we think his claim should have been dismissed without prejudice as premature. This leaves Jan free to make, in any future litigation, any contention he sees fit with respect to these minority shares, or with respect to his right to compensation. One other point should be dealt with. The Chancellor required that Jan deposit the minority shares before the appeal was taken. It was urged below, and urged here, that it would have been sufficient to require the deposit after the decision in this Court (assuming an affirmance). This was obviously a matter within the Chancellor's discretion, and we decline to review his determination.