This is the property of the Daily Journal Corporation and fully protected by copyright. It is made available only to Daily Journal subscribers for personal or collaborative purposes and may not be distributed, reproduced, modified, stored or transferred without written permission. Please click "Reprint" to order presentation-ready copies to distribute to clients or use in commercial marketing materials or for permission to post on a website. and copyright (showing year of publication) at the bottom.

CONFIDENTIAL

Feb. 4, 1995

Breach of Contract
Fiduciary Duty
Oral Agreement

Confidential

Settlement –  $375,000

Judge

Charles A. Legge

Court

USDC Northern


Attorneys

Plaintiff

Marc S. Mazer


Defendant

Jeffrey Keyser


Facts

In 1992 Plaintiff physician shareholders incorporated their health care facility at the suggestion of Defendant health care corporation's subsidiary. Pursuant to the written management agreement, Defendant's subsidiary managed and operated the business for the benefit of the shareholders. All drugs were to be purchased from Defendant's subsidiary; and a primary source of referrals were to come from the Plaintiff physician shareholders. Although, as shareholders, there was an economic incentive to refer their patients to the corporation, there were no legal obligations to do so. Plaintiffs alleged that, as a separate agreement and after the business proved profitable, Defendant's subsidiary agreed that it would purchase the business for a price equal to 3-times the annual net profit, based upon its 3 most profitable months of operation (this alleged agreement was oral). In January of 1994, California passed legislation which made it unlawful for shareholders to refer their own patients to the corporation. The legislation became effective on January 1, 1995. Between January 1994 and November 1994, Plaintiffs alleged that Defendant reassured them that it would purchase their stock in the corporation, based upon said formula. All of the said alleged representations were oral. Plaintiffs alleged that in November 1994, Defendant informed the shareholders that it had decided not to purchase the stock because some of the shareholders had stopped referring patients to the corporation for various reasons; Defendant alleged that the net profits of the corporation had decreased considerably over the last 6 months of 1994. Plaintiffs also alleged that since the date of commencement of operations, Defendant had had exclusive possession and control over all of the business records of the corporation; and therefore, the Plaintiffs allegedly could not verify those representations at the time.

Settlement Discussions

Offers and demands were not disclosed.

Damages

$1,400,000.

Other Information

This matter was settled within 4 weeks after the filing of the complaint.


#86383

For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:

Email jeremy@reprintpros.com for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390