Skip to main content

Henry Ford, Dodge v. Ford Motor Co., and Maximizing Shareholder Wealth

Watched a good documentary on the brilliant and flawed and kind-of-weird Henry Ford. The documentary touched on one of the most important corporate law/finance cases in history, Dodge v. Ford Motor Company.

"Dodge" was John and Horace Dodge, who created the Dodge car company. John and Horace were early investors in Ford Motor Co. (created in 1903) and owned about 10% of the shares.

Ford came out with the Model T in 1909, and after Ford invented the "assembly line" in 1913, the Model T was produced and sold like crazy and generated massive profits. For many years, Ford distributed portions of the profits to shareholders like the Dodges.

Henry Ford actually hated investors and wealthy people like the Dodges and believed in lifting up the common man and making their lives better (or so he claimed). In 1916 Ford Motor Co. had $50,000,000 in cash. Henry Ford wanted to use the money to build a new, giant factory, to give more jobs to more people, etc., and severely cut back dividends to shareholders.

The Dodges, as minority shareholders, sued Ford to stop construction of the factory and force Ford to pay out the cash as dividends. Their Dodge car company was already up and running, and they wanted their share of the profits to invest in their own company. Ford knew this, of course, and this was the real reason he didn't want to pay them dividends.

The case went through trial and up to the Michigan Supreme Court, which held that the purpose of a corporation was to make profits and maximize shareholder wealth, not to be social crusaders and do-gooders like Henry Ford wanted. To this day the case is still cited for that proposition.

So Ford was forced to pay out millions in dividends to shareholders. But Ford went on to build the giant factory with other money, called River Rouge. It's still around today. Good articles here and here.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Respond to Demands for Evidence or Be Prepared to Have Your Case Thrown Out!

The evidence or fact-gathering phase of a lawsuit is called "discovery". Each party is entitled to demand various kinds of evidence from the other party or parties in preparation for a possible trial. Two common kinds of discovery demands are a "Demand for Discovery and Inspection" and "Interrogatories" (which are written questions, answered in writing, under oath). (Psst: Interrogatories are basically a waste of time, but that will be left for another day.) In a recent decision , a New York appeals court affirmed the ruling of a lower court, throwing out a case for plaintiff's failing to respond to defendants' discovery demands. In that case, an LLC sued an architecture firm for malpractice and breach of contract. During the discovery phase, defendants architects served plaintiff with a Demand for Discovery and Inspection and Interrogatories. You only have 20 days to respond or object to discovery demands, or you lose a lot of rights in how yo...

Consumer Law Update: FTC sues DIRECTV for Deceptive Business Practices

I'm sure most people think that "of course" big businesses are constantly, intentionally, ripping people off and are engaged in deceptive business practices. As a lawyer, my inclination is I can't believe a big business, with lots of executives and lots of lawyers looking things over, could possibly offer promos or services that are so misleading or deceptive that they are illegal. They can't possibly be that dumb. Sometimes I'm wrong. For instance, the Federal Trade Commission has sued DIRECTV in San Francisco federal court for engaging in deceptive and misleading business practices in violation of federal law. DIRECTV was telling consumers, hey, look at our low monthly rates and look at all the great stuff you get, come sign up with us! However, DIRECTV failed to adequately disclose that, oh, by the way, in order to get that great deal, you have to sign a two-year contract; those low rates are only good for the first year; your monthly bill could go ...

Recent Case Developments: Dave & Buster’s Held Not Liable For Stabbing of Customer

When you operate a restaurant or a bar, etc., sometimes customers get attacked by other customers/patrons--for whatever reason. So when can the restaurant be held liable in situations like that? In what is a horrible story, in 2010, an 8-year-old boy was at a Dave & Buster’s with his family at The Source Mall in Westbury. The boy was playing a game when he was suddenly attacked and stabbed 5 times in the back by a 23-year-old man who testified in the case that he went there to stab someone.  [The man plead guilty to attempted murder and was sentenced to 14 years in prison .] The boy (through his parents) sued the attacker (who has no money, I assume), Dave & Buster’s, and the Mall. The boy alleged Dave & Buster’s failed to provide adequate security, which would have prevented the attack. Dave & Buster’s got the case dismissed against them at the trial court level, and the boy appealed. In a recent decision, the Second Department affirmed that...