Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Nathan Chanofsky v. The Chase Manhattan Corporation, 530 F.2d 470, 2d Cir. (1976)
Nathan Chanofsky v. The Chase Manhattan Corporation, 530 F.2d 470, 2d Cir. (1976)
2d 470
Gabriel Kaszovitz, New York City (Feder, Kaszovitz & Weber, Murray L.
Skala, New York City, of counsel), for appellant.
William E. Jackson, New York City (Milbank, Tweed, Hadley & McCloy,
Russell E. Brooks, Kenneth A. Perko, Jr., New York City of counsel), for
appellee.
Before FEINBERG, GURFEIN and VAN GRAAFEILAND, Circuit
Judges.
VAN GRAAFEILAND, Circuit Judge:
Plaintiff appeals from a final judgment entered against him on the law and the
facts following the argument of what started out to be a Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6)
motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim combined with an alternative
Fed.R.Civ.P. 56 motion for summary judgment. At the end of the argument, the
District Judge concluded that the parties were submitting the case to him for
final decision on the facts contained in the affidavits and disposed of it on the
merits, holding for defendant because he found plaintiff had suffered no
damage. Because we think the procedure followed was the result of a
misunderstanding between court and counsel, we vacate the judgment.
There is little dispute as to the events which preceded the argument of the
motion. On October 2, 1974, appellee Chase announced that the bond trading
account of its principal subsidiary, the Chase Manhattan Bank, had been
Plaintiff had purchased five one-thousand dollar, six and one-half percent
Chase debentures on August 12, 1974, which were convertible into common
stock at $57.50 per share, and he claimed a personal loss as a result of having
allegedly made such purchase at an inflated price. In moving to dismiss, Chase
took the position that the price of these convertible debentures was determined
by prevailing interest rates and was not influenced in any way by the overstated
bond valuation. Affidavits submitted by Chase showed that between May 1974
and October 1974 the market price of the debentures had fluctuated between 69
3/4 and 88 1/2, while the market price of its common stock varied between 27
1/4 and 43 3/4. Accordingly, says the bank, at no time was conversion of the
debentures into stock financially feasible, and their value was therefore
determined by their rate of interest vis-a-vis the rates generally prevailing.2
Plaintiff's answer to this contention was based upon a showing that immediately
following the announcement of October 2, there was a two point drop in the
market price of the debentures, which, plaintiff says, is a good indication of the
existence of prior overvaluation. Voluminous market statistics were presented
with the affidavits of the parties in support of their respective positions.
During the oral argument on the motion, plaintiff's attorney agreed to waive a
jury; and the discussion which followed led the District Judge to believe that
both parties were willing to submit the case to him for final determination on
the basis of the largely undisputed facts in the affidavits. He marked the case
'submitted' and orally advised counsel of this fact. It is clear from the decision
of the District Judge that he considered a jury to have been waived, proof by
expert testimony to have been dispensed with and the case submitted to him on
the facts contained in the affidavits. He stated in his decision that it constituted
findings of fact and conclusions of law as 'required' by Fed.R.Civ.P. 52.
In addition to urging reversal, plaintiff argues that his waiver of a jury trial is
not binding because it was not made in accordance with the provisions of
Fed.R.Civ.P. 39. Inasmuch as Judge Duffy has already indicated his views on
the factual questions to be tried, we think that withdrawal of plaintiff's waiver
should be permitted regardless of the technical merits of his Rule 39 argument.
Because the responsibility for the entry of the judgment we are vacating rests in
substantial part with plaintiff's attorney, the costs of this appeal will not be
awarded to either party.
Vacated and remanded.
10
Chase's first quarter financial statement was published on May 10, 1974, and
the figures from this statement were incorporated in a registration statement
filed with the SEC in August
Total interest payable on all debentures was thirteen million dollars per annum,
and Chase's income for the first nine months of 1974 was one hundred eighteen
million dollars