Coca-Cola in stock shakedown

A California family says it's owed $130 million from the company after finding an ancient stock certificate at an estate sale.

By Kim Peterson Apr 10, 2012 11:14AM
Man finds old stock certificate at estate sale. Certificate worth hundreds of millions of dollars. Man's family suddenly rich.

That's the story that Tony Marohn's family is sticking with -- and it wants Coca-Cola (KO) to pay up. Marohn bought an antique Palmer Union Oil Co. stock certificate in 2008 for $5, and his family now says the certificate is worth $130 million in Coca-Cola shares.

How does the now-defunct Palmer Union Oil Co. translate into Coca-Cola stock? That's a little murky. Marohn found a roundabout connection through other old companies, including Petrocarbon Chemicals and Taylor Wine Co., Reuters reports.

Marohn died in 2010, but his California family is taking up his cause. Coca-Cola traded for $72.51 a share Tuesday, making the family's claim worth $130.5 million.

Coca-Cola went on the offensive after Marohn wrote it a letter demanding 1.8 million shares of stock. The company sued Marohn in Delaware's Chancery Court in 2009 and asked a judge to strike down his claim on the stock, the Daily Mail reports.

So far, a judge is not pleased with the Marohn family. "This is a new version of the Beverly Hillbillies," Judge Leo Strine said in a January hearing, according to the Daily Mail. He also warned the family against pursuing "a drive-by of a public company" to get millions of dollars."It's just not a sport," he added.

In a statement last week, Coke said Marohn's claim "is meritless and unfair to the company's millions of legitimate shareholders."

Is this a shameful grab for money or a family honoring its father's last wishes? I'll give you one guess how the family is spinning this.

"It's not so much about the money," the family's attorney told ABC News. "For my client, for Jamie and her mom, it's about her dad. This was a big deal for her dad before he passed away. She's going to finish the fight."

More from Top Stocks
401Comments
May 1, 2012 3:33PM
avatar
stockcop54:

Based on Coca Cola's response to the court about the claim not being "FAIR" to its current & real shareholders Coca Cola is saying YES the certificate is good BUT i don't want to pay its 2 old.

I would say to Coca Cola Is it fair to pay people $8 hour to work and expect them to survive?  Its not but thats life as we all know life is not FAIR.

I would say the certificate is valid & Coke needs to ante UP to ALL holders of these Palmer Union Oil Co certificates even if you found them in a TRASH can.

Apr 15, 2012 12:07AM
avatar
Greed by attorney and family members. Absurd to use the father as reason. How about Ko paying but then donate the money to charity.
Apr 12, 2012 2:44PM
avatar

Spend $5 at a garage sale and you think you are entitled to millions.

Apr 11, 2012 4:51PM
avatar

I Just bought the mineral rights to manhattan on ebay!

Im moving my equipment to wall street right now!

we are going to dig up and keep everything under the ground under those buildings!

I got it .99 buy it now!!!!

 

I bid on all the public traded stocks from the soviet union too!

should be getting those and calling russia tommorow!

 

anyone wanna pitch in? were gonna have a keg and some

dominos take out...

(I own dominos and A+B)  so its on me...

bought that stock at a flea market in disney land.

 

 

Apr 11, 2012 3:22PM
avatar
Assuming the (seemingly unlikely) acquisition by Coca-Cola of the oil company or some combination of events that would have entitled the original owner of the stock to some Coke stock, and assuming that there is no limitation on how long the registered owner's eligibility for the conversion lasts, I would guess that the original registered owner (and his/her heirs) would be entitled to the Coke stock.   Ownership recording way back when was handled in a more primitive way, but in principle it is the same as it is now.   There is usually an institution like a bank that keeps track of all the stockholders and gets involved with transfers of ownership (and issues new physical stock certificates), and perhaps the company in question also has records of all its owners (after all, it has to know for its financial statements how many shares of outstanding stock there are, and for any dividends, who to send them to--presumably, that recording keeping has been going on forever).  The only difference now is that most shares are owned in "street name"--broker's name, and the firms hold shares of behalf of us all, for the most part. 

Key questions: 
1)  Are there forever rights to such shares?
2)  Can it be proven that the shares to Coca-Cola were never issued to the original owner, (which if they were would have invalidated the original oil company stock certificates)?  In today's world, even mortgage paperwork was lost.  What happened to files that were in existence and suspense 100 years ago?
2) What do the relevant states do with unclaimed property such as the stock that would have been issued but possibly never taken possession of by the rightful party?  Was such a state function (unclaimed property) even in existence back then, and if not, what did the states do with prior cases when the laws came on the books?  Certain things revert to the states when claimants and owners can't be found after a certain time, like safe deposit box contents.
3) Does the holder of such a right (and their heirs) retain those rights as long as they do not transfer the ownership, no matter what happens to the physical stock certificate?  Or does "possession is nine points of the law" hold true?  The latter seems unlikely since a thief could claim such possession. 

I recall a case years ago in which some early employees of Sears were promised shares that were never given to them or whatever it was.   I don't remember ever having heard of the disposition of that case. 






Apr 11, 2012 12:48AM
avatar

 "This is a new version of the Beverly Hillbillies," Judge Leo Strine said in a January hearing, according to the Daily Mail. He also warned the family against pursuing "a drive-by of a public company" to get millions of dollars."It's just not a sport,"

 

Is it legit or not? How about just giving an objective analysis of the case instead of injecting your opinions about how much you don't like the uncommonness of the scenario. Your job is to judge the law, not the intangibles of someone's character.

Apr 10, 2012 10:34PM
avatar
B.S. The family would not have sought, seeked, thought about, or even dreamed about a snakeattorney if it wasn't about the MONEY!  Again B.S.
Apr 10, 2012 7:13PM
avatar
If the stock is owned by bearer and Coca Cola bought that company or another company bought that company through for an agreed amount of shares  then it seems like their claim is valid.  It doesn't matter how much they paid for it or how they came across it.  I am offended by the Beverly Hillbilly line - why shouldn't people poor or not be able to come into wealth?

But I have never heard of a bearer owned stock certificate - it may be - but it might not be... 

But the owner whose name is printed on the oil company stock and their heirs should  be entitled to compensation providing that the stock was never converted or sold- why wouldn't they be?  Should a wealthy company be free of claims just because a lot of time went by?  I am not a corporate-aphobe as so many are today but still...


Apr 10, 2012 6:11PM
avatar
i have a better idea....lets all let our government support us...no work..why work when moneys free...let the government give us homes....let the government buy us food....let the government pay us to have 6 babies...let the government give us medical....WOW....lets move to cuba and enjoy their idylic life style....Whoa...isnt that something the russians tried right????Hmmmmm.Maybe we should all get off our asses and get a fricking job....WOW...thats different huh???.
Apr 10, 2012 5:59PM
Apr 10, 2012 5:55PM
avatar
how can he claim its legal if he got it at a garage sale????  the stock was never transferred to him so how can he claim it ?????Hell it could have been stolen
Apr 10, 2012 5:50PM
avatar
Look; if they can prove it's legitimate then more power to them even if they are pretty lame fibbers about their motives. They still have the stock and if it is what they say it is, then Coke should ante up.
Apr 10, 2012 5:21PM
avatar
I would say these people can be the hillbillied money hungery degenerates they are described as all they want! if the stock is one that was once legitimatly purchased and has not yet been sold back.. then its value should remain....  and if the owner chose to sell it off then the next owner assumes control of said assets...  if a kid who loves shoes sells thier necklace made of gold worth $1,000 for a pair of shoes worth $20...  Does the value of said gold necklace become worthless?   one mans trash is another mans treasure...
Apr 10, 2012 5:16PM
avatar
So here's deal. It pretty simple actually. The certificate is either registered to a specific owner or in bearer form.  If it is a specific owner, it belongs to the name on the certificate and that’s it (no matter who buys the certificate at an estate sale).  Unless there was a private securities transaction, and that transaction is noted on the books and records of the company, and is noted on the books of the transfer agent, the securities still belong to the original owner and the one who paid for the stock many years ago. Agreements and signatures from both the buyer and seller are required and the transaction must be within the rules and regulation of the securities industry at the time of the transaction. In 2009 there were plenty of rules and regs and this transaction (buying a piece of paper at an estate sale) does not follow the current rules and regs. The person who bought the piece of paper because it looked nice, is not the beneficial owner of the securities (stock).  However, if it is bearer form it does belong to individual who presents the certificate.  Similar to bearer bonds. So far it’s pretty obvious. Now the big question... is the certificate still live? Has it been surrendered or voided? Was it claimed as a lost certificate before?  If it is live, the original owner or the estate of the original owner has a claim to the shares, can claim a lost certificate, and send an affidavit to the transfer agent who will contact the company.  There may also have been restrictions on time to surrender the shares when the company was taken over by Coke. So that could be a concern.  More than likely the certificate is dead and has no value.  The transfer agent and the company are the only entities that know the truth.
Apr 10, 2012 5:14PM
avatar
If it is "not about the money" then do not try to sue for "money"...what a load of baloney this doesn't even deserve to be news
Apr 10, 2012 4:57PM
avatar

After reading the comments and "yeah/nea" voting on them, I am convinced that Coke has recruited an army of right-wing/religious​ people to comment and vote on their behalf.

 

I don't know what to think about these people or their stock, but after listening to these hateful reactions and seeing coke attempt to "game" the judiciary-not to mention the judges disparaging and biased comments about an American family which seem to substatiate that fact-I'm ready to root for them just on merit.

 

 

Apr 10, 2012 4:56PM
avatar

I have about 500 $1.00 US "Silver Cerificates, " when the US produced these paper notes it was an agreement to bear on demand 1 silver dollar. right now one silver dollar is worth about $30.00 that sums up to $15,000.00. Unfortunately the US Dept. of treasury still only value these notes as one dollar. even though its in writing right there on the note.

Highly doubtful they will ever see anything.  Coca cola should be able to seek its legal fee's incured to defend itself. If the plaintiff is broke and thier attorney is working on a percentage,

Then the attorney should be held accountable for those fee's if they lose.

But thats not how it works! Just another problem our country faces. 

 

 

Apr 10, 2012 4:54PM
avatar

Please!!!

 You holier than thou hypocrites, If any of you owned this stock, and believed it to be legitimate, you'd  go after the money too. If you say you wouldn't, you're a DAMN LIAR.

 

It' sounds like Coca-Cola  already has the judge in their back pocket. I wonder how they had to pay him ( bribe him ) to get him to call the Morohn family "Hillbillies", and compare their case to a "drive-by" shooting?

 

 

Apr 10, 2012 4:54PM
avatar
Bottom line.... If the certificate is legitiment, its still representative of the company it evolved to, now Coke!  As long as it was not stolen, (It was paid for in the yard sale),  its still a good document. Possession is 9/10ths of the law, isn't it?  Right or wrong, morally,  they are entitled to cash it in. I would have a little trouble sleeping collecting $130 large, but I'm sure that would go away pretty quickly. They (Coke) should settle some agreement and fade away quick.  But, Big Business and morals don't come up together in the same sentence very often! I should throw "Government" in there too!
Apr 10, 2012 4:50PM
avatar

Sorry folks I totally agree with the family claim. I know how stock,company mergers work.

Why should Coca -Cola be able to absorb the extra money? It's not like they don't have it.

And remember back in the time frame they speak of, the reason chemical companies were involved, was because Coca-Cola was made with real Coca if you know what I mean. Yes cocaine silly.

How do you think america got so addicted to it. Duh.

 Anywho besides that ANY stock that is passed thru a merger of companies is entitled to the full rights it holds.

I know this because my family held stock to an insurance company that was absorbed into a larger one, and then again at 2 to 1 ratios. When I found them I queried my parents about why they are not cashing them in?  They said they were told that the company was defunct well yes but not before it was merged. So I convinced them to take them (after doing some research), to a stock broker. I insisted that they take my research, and present it to him. He was awed that he did not realize this the first time and apologized.

End result? The 2 $500 certificates ended up paying nearly $30,000  booyah!

Report
Please help us to maintain a healthy and vibrant community by reporting any illegal or inappropriate behavior. If you believe a message violates theCode of Conductplease use this form to notify the moderators. They will investigate your report and take appropriate action. If necessary, they report all illegal activity to the proper authorities.
Categories
100 character limit
Are you sure you want to delete this comment?

DATA PROVIDERS

Copyright © 2013 Microsoft. All rights reserved.

Quotes are real-time for NASDAQ, NYSE and AMEX. See delay times for other exchanges.

Fundamental company data and historical chart data provided by Thomson Reuters (click for restrictions). Real-time quotes provided by BATS Exchange. Real-time index quotes and delayed quotes supplied by Interactive Data Real-Time Services. Fund summary, fund performance and dividend data provided by Morningstar Inc. Analyst recommendations provided by Zacks Investment Research. StockScouter data provided by Verus Analytics. IPO data provided by Hoover's Inc. Index membership data provided by SIX Financial Information.

Japanese stock price data provided by Nomura Research Institute Ltd.; quotes delayed 20 minutes. Canadian fund data provided by CANNEX Financial Exchanges Ltd.

STOCK SCOUTER

There's a problem getting this information right now. Please try again later.

More
Fidelity Brokerage Services, Member NYSE, SIPC. (c) 2011 FMR LLC. All rights reserved

VIDEO ON MSN MONEY

ABOUT

Top Stocks provides analysis about the most noteworthy stocks in the market each day, combining some of the best content from around the MSN Money site and the rest of the Web.

Contributors include professional investors and journalists affiliated with MSN Money.

Follow us on Twitter @topstocksmsn.