FMC Corporation and Subsidiaries - Page 26




                                       - 26 -                                         
          the Second Circuit began its analysis with a general overview of            
          the case:                                                                   
                    At its heart, this appeal is about injury.  FMC                   
               claims it spent $220 million more on its restructuring                 
               than it should have, and seeks to shift that cost to                   
               Goldman because of the illegal conduct of Goldman's                    
               employees, Brown and Brosens.  FMC alleges that it is                  
               entitled to four types of relief:  first, consequential                
               damages based on the entire $220 million differential                  
               between the original restructuring plan and the                        
               consummated plan caused by Goldman's violations;                       
               second, compensatory damages for the lost value of its                 
               confidential information that was misappropriated and                  
               prematurely disclosed; third, disgorgement of Boesky's                 
               profits on the grounds that Goldman aided and abetted                  
               his violations of Rule 10b-5; and fourth, restitution                  
               of Goldman's $17.5 million fee because of Goldman's                    
               breach of its contractual and fiduciary duties.                        
                                                                                     
                    We agree with the combined decisions of district                  
               judges Williams and Pollack that FMC has either not                    
               alleged or is unable to prove a compensable injury.                    
               * * *  We agree that under the undisputed facts of this                
               case, the $220 million differential, the cost of                       
               creating the confidential financial projections and                    
               Goldman's fee cannot be recovered by FMC. In addition,                 
               because FMC has failed to state a claim against Goldman                
               under Rule 10b-5, it cannot recover Boesky's profits.                  
               [Id. at 260.]                                                          
               The Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit discussed in               
          detail its reasoning for rejecting petitioner’s claim for damages           
          as to the $220 million differential.  The court stated:                     
                    FMC seeks to recover the $220 million difference                  
               in the amounts it paid out to shareholders under the                   
               plan originally proposed and the one eventually                        
               accomplished.  It claims that Judge Pollack erred in                   
               granting summary judgment because "[t]he jury could ...                
               reasonably conclude that Boesky's trading was a                        
               substantial factor in the rise of the price of FMC                     
               stock, and that the rise in the price of the stock                     
               forced FMC to abandon its original recapitalization                    






Page:  Previous  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  30  31  32  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011