Court Opinion

ID: 9419958
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-02 22:52:19.471342+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:22:21.328444
License: Public Domain

Mr. Justice Black,
dissenting.
I agree substantially with the dissent of Mr. Justice Reed, but wish to add this thought. Today’s decision goes far beyond the dubious doctrine announced in Rogers v. Guaranty Trust Co., 288 U. S. 123. There may be rare instances in which a federal court could decline to provide an equitable remedy against multi-state corporate defendants. A prayer for relief which requires the appointment of a receiver or the detailed and continuing supervision of the affairs of a defendant corporation whose headquarters is beyond the jurisdiction of the court would in my view constitute such a situation. Cf. Pennsylvania v. Williams, 294 U. S. 176.
The whole trend of recent congressional legislation has been to protect corporate stock and security holders. See e. g. Securities Act of 1933, 48 Stat. 74, 15 U. S. C. § 77a et seq. But this legislation was not intended as a complete substitute for the antidote provided by stockholders’ suits for the dangers inherent in the modern development of frequent conflicts of interest between corporate owners and corporate managers. See Lasswell, Dean and Podell, A Non-Bureaucratic Alternative to Minority Stockholders’ Suits, 43 Col. L. Rev. 1036, 1045, 1047; Koessler, The Stockholder’s Suit: A Comparative View, 46 Col. L. Rev. 238, 241. Yet the Court’s opinion sets up almost insuperable obstacles to many stockholders who would bring such suits. A California or Florida *533stockholder cannot easily go to Delaware, New Jersey, or New York to press his claims. And there is no good reason, in most actions brought to curb corporate mismanagement, why a stockholder should not bring such a suit in the state where he lives, bought his stock, and where the corporation has agents and does business. To put him to the inconvenience and disadvantage of going across the continent to the state of the managers to litigate his cause, all but nullifies his opportunity and inclination to sue to protect his interest and that of other owners.
Mr. Justice Rutledge joins in this opinion.