Knowledge

AP Smith Manufacturing Co. v. Barlow

Source 📝

39: 157:. The shareholders disapproved of the gift and contended that it was a breach of a director's duty to act in the corporation or shareholder interests. Specifically they argued that there was no express authority in the corporation's certificate of incorporation. A New Jersey statute allowed corporations to make charitable donations, so long as the recipient did not own more than 10 per cent of a corporation's stock, but the shareholders argued this was inapplicable if the corporation was incorporated beforehand. 138: 425: 175:
In the light of all of the foregoing we have no hesitancy in sustaining the validity of the donation by the plaintiff. There is no suggestion that it was made indiscriminately or to a pet charity of the corporate directors in furtherance of personal rather than corporate
165:
The Court held the gift was within the competence of the company and lauded it as a 'long visioned… action in recognizing and voluntarily discharging its high obligations as a constituent of our modern society.' It continued as follows.
170:
State legislation adopted in the public interest and applied to pre-existing corporations under the reserved power has repeatedly been sustained by the Supreme Court.
336: 129:. It held that directors may make charitable donations, so long as their personal interests do not conflict, or there is a contravention of state law. 17: 348: 91: 201: 324: 548: 278: 87: 563: 387: 194: 553: 568: 313: 396: 521: 419: 187: 63: 290: 503: 558: 49: 381: 512: 150: 126: 468:"Stakeholder theory from a management perspective: Bridging the shareholder/stakeholder divide" 364: 154: 122: 104: 38: 8: 302: 230: 179: 254: 573: 530: 266: 360: 242: 118: 467: 542: 429: 146: 137: 153:, approved donation of $ 1,500 (equivalent to $ 17,100 in 2023) to 145:
The directors of AP Smith Manufacturing, a New Jersey company making
67: 395:
has been acknowledged as an early instance of legal recognition of
428:
This article incorporates text from this source, which is in the
84: 60: 499:, 13 N.J. 145, 98 A.2d 581 (N.J. 1953) is available from: 209: 125:in regard to balancing the interests of different 540: 195: 117:, 13 N.J. 145, 98 A.2d 581 (N.J. 1953), is a 379:Together with the earlier English case of 202: 188: 37: 465: 136: 325:In re Walt Disney Derivative Litigation 14: 541: 388:Miles v Sydney Meat-Preserving Co Ltd 337:In re Citigroup Derivative Litigation 183: 497:AP Smith Manufacturing Co. v. Barlow 416:AP Smith Manufacturing Co. v. Barlow 279:Broz v. Cellular Information Systems 121:case, concerning the application of 114:AP Smith Manufacturing Co. v. Barlow 32:AP Smith Manufacturing Co. v. Barlow 475:Australian Journal of Corporate Law 24: 25: 18:AP Smith Manufacturing Co v Barlow 585: 489: 549:United States corporate case law 423: 314:Delaware General Corporation Law 219:AP Smith Manufacturing v. Barlow 397:corporate social responsibility 564:1953 in United States case law 459: 447: 435: 409: 385:(1883) and Australian case of 13: 1: 402: 466:Baumfield, Victoria (2016). 291:The Charitable Corp v Sutton 210:Sources on directors' duties 7: 160: 50:Supreme Court of New Jersey 10: 590: 554:New Jersey state case law 382:Hutton v West Cork Rly Co 374: 357: 345: 333: 321: 311: 299: 287: 275: 263: 251: 239: 227: 215: 103: 98: 79: 74: 55: 45: 36: 31: 420:13 N.J. 145, 98 A.2d 581 141:Nassau Hall at Princeton 132: 569:East Orange, New Jersey 83:26 N.J. Super. 106, 97 270:, 5 A2d 503 (Del 1939) 258:, 164 NE 545 (NY 1928) 234:, 237 NE 2d 776 (1968) 178: 142: 222:39 ALR 2d 1179 (1953) 168: 140: 456:, 13 N.J. at 160-61. 328:, 825 A2d 275 (2003) 282:, 637 A2d 148 (1996) 155:Princeton University 303:Smith v. Van Gorkom 231:Shlensky v. Wrigley 559:1953 in New Jersey 340:964 A2d 106 (2009) 306:488 A2d 858 (1985) 255:Meinhard v. Salmon 143: 444:, 13 N.J. at 159. 371: 370: 365:directors' duties 352:308 US 295 (1939) 267:Guth v. Loft Inc. 123:directors' duties 110: 109: 105:Directors' duties 16:(Redirected from 581: 535: 529: 526: 520: 517: 511: 508: 502: 483: 482: 472: 463: 457: 451: 445: 439: 433: 427: 426: 413: 361:US corporate law 294:(1742) 26 ER 642 243:Keech v Sandford 204: 197: 190: 181: 180: 119:US corporate law 59:13 N.J. 145, 98 41: 29: 28: 21: 589: 588: 584: 583: 582: 580: 579: 578: 539: 538: 533: 527: 524: 518: 515: 509: 506: 500: 492: 487: 486: 470: 464: 460: 452: 448: 440: 436: 424: 414: 410: 405: 377: 372: 367: 353: 349:Pepper v Litton 341: 329: 317: 307: 295: 283: 271: 259: 247: 235: 223: 211: 208: 163: 135: 23: 22: 15: 12: 11: 5: 587: 577: 576: 571: 566: 561: 556: 551: 537: 536: 513:Google Scholar 491: 490:External links 488: 485: 484: 458: 446: 434: 407: 406: 404: 401: 376: 373: 369: 368: 358: 355: 354: 346: 343: 342: 334: 331: 330: 322: 319: 318: 312: 309: 308: 300: 297: 296: 288: 285: 284: 276: 273: 272: 264: 261: 260: 252: 249: 248: 240: 237: 236: 228: 225: 224: 216: 213: 212: 207: 206: 199: 192: 184: 162: 159: 134: 131: 108: 107: 101: 100: 96: 95: 81: 77: 76: 72: 71: 57: 53: 52: 47: 43: 42: 34: 33: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 586: 575: 572: 570: 567: 565: 562: 560: 557: 555: 552: 550: 547: 546: 544: 532: 523: 514: 505: 504:CourtListener 498: 494: 493: 481:(1): 187–207. 480: 476: 469: 462: 455: 450: 443: 438: 431: 430:public domain 422:(N.J. 1953). 421: 417: 412: 408: 400: 398: 394: 390: 389: 384: 383: 366: 362: 356: 351: 350: 344: 339: 338: 332: 327: 326: 320: 315: 310: 305: 304: 298: 293: 292: 286: 281: 280: 274: 269: 268: 262: 257: 256: 250: 245: 244: 238: 233: 232: 226: 221: 220: 214: 205: 200: 198: 193: 191: 186: 185: 182: 177: 173: 171: 167: 158: 156: 152: 148: 147:fire hydrants 139: 130: 128: 124: 120: 116: 115: 106: 102: 97: 93: 89: 86: 82: 78: 73: 69: 65: 62: 58: 54: 51: 48: 44: 40: 35: 30: 27: 19: 496: 478: 474: 461: 453: 449: 441: 437: 415: 411: 392: 386: 380: 378: 347: 335: 323: 301: 289: 277: 265: 253: 241: 229: 218: 217: 174: 172: 169: 164: 144: 127:stakeholders 113: 112: 111: 80:Prior action 75:Case history 26: 246:EWHC Ch J76 151:East Orange 70:1179 (1953) 543:Categories 403:References 316:§102(b)(7) 92:App. Div. 68:A.L.R. 2d 56:Citations 574:Donation 495:Text of 393:AP Smith 391:(1912), 161:Judgment 99:Keywords 534:  531:Leagle 528:  525:  522:Justia 519:  516:  510:  507:  501:  454:Barlow 442:Barlow 375:Legacy 471:(PDF) 176:ends. 133:Facts 94:1953) 66:, 39 46:Court 363:and 359:See 85:A.2d 61:A.2d 149:in 88:186 64:581 545:: 479:31 477:. 473:. 418:, 399:. 432:. 203:e 196:t 189:v 90:( 20:)

Index

AP Smith Manufacturing Co v Barlow

Supreme Court of New Jersey
A.2d
581
A.L.R. 2d
A.2d
186
App. Div.
Directors' duties
US corporate law
directors' duties
stakeholders

fire hydrants
East Orange
Princeton University
v
t
e
AP Smith Manufacturing v. Barlow
Shlensky v. Wrigley
Keech v Sandford
Meinhard v. Salmon
Guth v. Loft Inc.
Broz v. Cellular Information Systems
The Charitable Corp v Sutton
Smith v. Van Gorkom
Delaware General Corporation Law
In re Walt Disney Derivative Litigation

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.