NCJ Number
116745
Journal
University of Cincinnati Law Review Volume: 57 Issue: 2 Dated: (1988) Pages: 769-787
Date Published
1988
Length
19 pages
Annotation
In Smith v. Mulvaney (1987), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit correctly abandoned pro rata apportionment of damages in favor of defendant contribution based on relative fault, thus choosing fairness over convenience.
Abstract
In the collapse of United States National Bank of San Diego, shareholders in the original actions charged the defendants (C. Arnholt Smith, members of Smith's family, other bank directors, and bank officers) with misrepresentation of loan purposes, granting loans in excess of legal requirements, and funneling bank loans for personal gain. All of the directors, with the exception of C. Arnholt Smith, settled with the plaintiffs. Helen Smith, wife of C. Arnholt Smith, and four other nondirector defendants had declined to participate in the settlement. At trial, Helen Smith was found guilty of violating Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Security Exchange Commission rule 10b-5. Smith brought suit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California against the settling directors seeking pro rata contributions. The court held that Smith had the right to such contribution but that payments should be apportioned among parties based on relative culpability. Smith appealed the decision. On appeal, the Ninth Circuit found that a genuine issue of material fact existed regarding whether the settling directors had paid their proper share of the damages, but it upheld the concept of apportionment based on relative culpability, thus supplanting the traditional pro rata assessment. 137 footnotes.