Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 17.pdf/376

 THE EQUITABLE SITUATION younger Mr. Hyde attains the age of thirty years, and the stock which makes up the trust fund will then become the latter 's individual property. Meanwhile, by their control of a majority of the Society's capital stock, the election of the directors has been vested in the hands of these trustees. The controversy now prevailing in the Equitable Society first arose early in Feb ruary of the present year, a date subsequent to the annual election of directors, and just before the annual meeting of the board to elect officers for 1905. It was inaugurated by the president, Mr. Alexander, who at that time presented to Mr. Hyde two peti tions signed by a large number of the officers of the Society, one of them demand ing that immediate steps be taken to place the policy-holders of the Society in control of the corporation, and representing that the control of the company by its stock holders was damaging to its business; the other expressing the opinion that the con tinued exercise by Mr. Hyde of the great powers which he had assumed to exercise as vice-president of the Society would be prejudicial to its interests. These petitions were laid before the board of directors, and with them was submitted an opinion signed by eminent counsel, to the effect that the board of directors of the Society had, under Sec. 52 of the Insurance Law of the State of New York, power by a mere majority vote, without consent of the stock-holders, to amend its charter so as to confer upon all policy-holders the right to vote in person or by proxy. A form of amended charter in accordance with this opinion was at the same time laid before the board. From that beginning the controversy has developed and spread. Charges and coun tercharges have been made in the public press. The old officers of the Society were, however, all reglected and a committee ap pointed to adopt a plan for giving policyholders a right to vote in corporate meet ings, and for indemnifying the stock-holders for their loss of control. This step, which

355

it was supposed would furnish a solution of the controversy, proved in reality to be but the commencement of the real fight. The so-called committee on mutualization were advised by counsel that the Society was without power to purchase shares of its own capital stock, or to divert its funds to payments to stock-holders by way of com pensation for loss of their voting power (see New York Insurance Law § 16). Policyholders' committees were organized to bring pressure to bear upon the Society to give to policy-holders the right to vote for direc tors. Compromises were proposed and re jected. Finally Mr. Hyde, as the principal stock-holder, at the request of the board of directors and a policy-holders' committee, agreed to a plan whereby the stock was to continue to elect 24 of the directors of the Society, and the remaining 28 were to be chosen by the policy-holders. An amended charter, containing these provisions, was adopted by the directors and submitted to the Superintendent of Insurance for his approval. Thereupon minority stock-holders began to make themselves heard. One of these, Mr. Franklin B. Lord, has instituted a suit, attacking the validity of the pro posed amendments to the charter upon the ground that they deprive the stock-holders of property rights., and that this cannot be done without the consent of all the stock holders of the Society. In this suit a large number of other stock-holders have inter vened, and many of the questions of law will apparently be threshed out in the course of this litigation. Policy-holders' suits have been instituted, not only in New York, but in a large number of other jurisdictions. Attempts have been made to have re ceivers appointed for the Society and its assets. Investigations of the Society's af fairs are being carried on by the Insurance Department of the State of New York, and by a committee of its own directors. Charges of malfeasance have been made against Mr. Hyde by Mr. Alexander or his partizans, and similar countercharges have been made