Skip to main content



Halper v. Halper

164 F.3d 830 (3rd Cir. 1999)

CONTRACTS; INTERPRETATION—The undisclosed subjective intent of a participant in a transaction cannot be used to alter the intent clearly manifested in the documents to which that participant subscribed.

One of four equal owners of a nearly insolvent corporation wanted to purchase the stock held by the other three owners. Several structures were contemplated, but rejected. One suggestion was that the transaction be structured as a stock redemption. The selling shareholders rejected this format because of concern that the corporation’s insolvency would render it an illegal redemption and a fraudulent transfer. Ultimately, the parties reached a compromise, which was memorialized in four agreements: (1) a letter agreement that summarized the transaction and described the other three documents’ significance; (2) an employment agreement providing that the corporation would pay a “signing bonus” in twelve equal monthly installments; (3) a guaranty and indemnity agreement requesting the purchasing shareholder to personally guarantee payment of the signing bonus; and (4) a voting trust agreement immediately transferring control of the selling shareholders’ shares to the purchasing shareholder, as trustee. A paragraph in the letter agreement provided that the purchasing shareholder had a three year irrevocable option to purchase the stock at nominal consideration either (a) personally, (b) by an entity created by the purchasing shareholder, or (c) by the company. About a year later, the purchasing shareholder exercised the option to purchase the shares in his own name. Two days later, the corporation’s creditors filed an involuntary bankruptcy petition. The corporation did not honor its signing bonus obligations and one of the shareholders resorted to his rights under the guaranty. In response, the purchasing shareholder sought a declaration from the bankruptcy court that the underlying signing bonus obligation was void as a redemption by the corporation while insolvent and a further declaration that his personal guarantee did not extend to this void agreement. Further, he sought a declaration that the obligation arising out of the signing bonus was void as a fraudulent transfer. The Bankruptcy Court, with the District Court’s affirmance, ruled in favor of the purchasing shareholder and declared the guaranty unenforceable as against New Jersey’s public policy because it was part of an illegal stock redemption under New Jersey law and constituted a fraudulent transfer under New Jersey and federal bankruptcy law. The Court of Appeals reversed, finding that the lower courts had erroneously applied contract principles.

The Court of Appeals believed that its initial task was to determine the parties’ intent. It found no ambiguity in the text of the related documents. It found that all of the extrinsic evidence was entirely consistent with the express and unambiguous intent reflected in the terms of the agreements. In its view, while the parties intended that the selling shareholders would grant an option to the corporation that could result in a redemption, they did not intend that option to be exercised at a time when the corporation was insolvent. Further all relevant evidence indicated that no redemption occurred. In furtherance of its analysis, it concluded that: (1) the selling shareholders granted an option to the corporation that could be exercised if the purchasing shareholder infused capital to turn the business around, but which all recognized could not be exercised during insolvency, (2) the selling shareholder granted the purchasing shareholder an option to purchase his shares, which the purchasing shareholder exercised, and (3) there was no stock redemption. In reaching that conclusion, the Court was not unmindful of the fact that the Bankruptcy Court found that the purchasing shareholder intended his exercise letter to be an exercise of the corporation’s option to buy the other shareholders’ stock. However, under New Jersey law, the buyer’s subjective intent was not legally relevant. The undisclosed subjective intent of a participant in a transaction cannot be used to alter the intent clearly manifested in the documents to which he subscribed.

In the Court’s order of remand, it recognized that its conclusion did not resolve the controversy. It directed the lower court to resolve the claim that the signing bonus was a fraudulent conveyance. It also asked the lower court to determine whether the unconditional guaranty could extend the guarantor’s responsibility beyond that of the primary obligor.


MEISLIK & MEISLIK
66 Park Street • Montclair, New Jersey 07042
tel: 973-783-3000 • fax: 973-744-5757 • info@meislik.com