Beltram v. Shackleford, Farrior, Stallings & Evans

Citations: 725 F. Supp. 499; 1989 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13973; 1989 WL 141410Docket: 86-428-CIV-T-17

Court: District Court, M.D. Florida; October 17, 1989; Federal District Court

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

The United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida, presided by Judge Kovachevich, addressed a motion for summary judgment in the case of Beltram v. Shackleford, Farrior, Stallings, and Evans. The court emphasized that summary judgment is appropriate only when the moving party demonstrates the absence of genuine issues of material fact, viewing evidence favorably for the nonmoving party. The court cited precedents establishing that factual disputes prevent summary judgment and that the nonmoving party must provide specific facts to show genuine issues for trial.

In evaluating Count I, the court found that the defendants—Shackleford, Farrior, Stallings, and Evans—were not in privity with the plaintiffs, which is a necessary condition for claims under the Florida Securities and Investor Protection Act. The Florida Supreme Court's decision in E.F. Hutton, Inc. v. Rousseff clarified that privity is required for claims under Florida Statutes Section 517.211. The court noted that the defendants did not solicit the sale of securities for financial gain, thus lacking the status of a seller or agent of the seller. Consequently, summary judgment was granted in favor of the defendants for Count I.

In Count II, the plaintiffs conceded that the defendants were entitled to summary judgment, confirming the court's decision to grant summary judgment as a matter of law.

To succeed in a 10b-5 claim, Plaintiffs must demonstrate four elements: (1) a false representation of a material fact, (2) made with scienter, (3) that the plaintiff justifiably relied upon, and (4) that proximately caused the plaintiff's damages. The Defendants argue that the bonus received by Devine did not cause the Plaintiffs' investment losses and that the Private Placement Memorandum's disclosure regarding the J.A.P. litigation was not fraudulent. Plaintiffs counter that they relied on omitted information regarding Devine's bonus and the J.A.P. litigation disclosure, leading them to invest when they otherwise would not have.

Decker, a Plaintiff, testified that he would not have invested if he had known about Devine's bonus, which he viewed as excessive. He also stated that the bonus amount was not significant relative to Key's operations and that its payment would not have affected the company's failure. The Defendants further argue that the bonus, being less than one cent per share, could not have caused a cash drain that led to Key's business collapse. Plaintiffs maintain that there are unresolved questions about the credibility and intent of the Defendants and their witnesses, suggesting that a jury could find that Key's failure was linked to Devine's guaranteed bonus.

Devine’s deposition revealed he received a $200,000 yearly compensation package, which included a $100,000 base salary and a minimum $100,000 bonus. However, due to Key's financial issues, including a significant judgment from the J.A.P. litigation, a tax delinquency, and a failed merger, Key filed for bankruptcy in February 1986, with stock prices declining prior to this event. The Court determined that given the limited cash paid as a bonus and Key's substantial operational problems, there were no factual disputes warranting trial. It concluded that the Plaintiffs would not be able to demonstrate that Devine's bonus was the proximate cause of their investment losses, leading to the grant of summary judgment for the Defendants.

Key Air Services, Inc., a subsidiary of Key Energy, was in default of an aircraft lease as of March 31, 1982, following the return of the aircraft to the lessor, which deemed the termination unacceptable. The lease allowed the lessor to recover approximately $600,000 in unpaid amounts over five years. Key Energy and the lessor were attempting to sell the aircraft, with management believing its market value exceeded the owed amount, and asserted that the situation would not materially affect the company's financial status.

In February 1983, J.A.P. Incorporated sued Key Energy and Key Air Services in Hillsborough County Circuit Court for an alleged breach of the aircraft lease, claiming damages. The aircraft was returned to J.A.P. and sold. Key's management believed they had valid defenses against the lawsuit and anticipated no significant negative impact on the corporation's financial condition. Plaintiffs argued that Key knew it would lose the case at the time the Private Placement Memorandum was prepared, citing a conversation with J.A.P.'s attorney and the subsequent judgment against Key as evidence of fraudulent intent.

The Court found that the plaintiffs failed to present sufficient facts to establish a factual dispute regarding fraudulent intent, which typically falls to a jury to determine. Consequently, the Court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendant, dismissing the case and denying the motion for oral argument.