Connection lost
Server error
Robinson v. Wangemann Case Brief
Why Top Law Students (And Those Aspiring to Be) Use LSD+ Briefs
Let's be real, law school is a marathon. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full case system is designed by Harvard Law School and MIT grads to match your pace: Quick summaries when you're slammed, detailed analysis when you need to go deep. Only LSD+ offers this kind of flexibility to genuinely fit your study flow.
Adaptive Case Views
Toggle between Flash, Standard, and Expanded. Get what you need, when you need it.
Exam-Ready IRAC Format
We deliver the precise structure professors look for in exam answers.
Complex Cases, Clarified
We break down dense legal reasoning into something digestible, helping you grasp core concepts.
Case Brief Summary & Legal Analysis
tl;dr: A corporation bought its own stock with a promissory note while solvent. When it later became bankrupt, the court held the former stockholder’s claim on the note was subordinate to the claims of general creditors, as solvency is required at the time of payment.
Legal Significance: Establishes the “time of payment” rule for corporate stock repurchases: a corporation’s promise to buy its own stock is enforceable only if it has sufficient surplus at the time of payment, not merely at the time of the agreement.
Robinson v. Wangemann Law School Study Guide
Use this case brief structure for your own legal analysis. Focus on the IRAC methodology to excel in law school exams and cold calls.
Case Facts & Court Holding
Key Facts & Case Background
In 1922, Wangemann-Reichardt Company, Inc. agreed to purchase 500 shares of its own stock from its president, Arthur Wangemann, for $55,000. At the time of the agreement, the corporation was solvent and possessed a surplus exceeding the purchase price. The corporation issued a promissory note to Wangemann in exchange for the stock. The note was never paid in full; it was periodically renewed, and the principal was reduced over several years. The corporation, later renamed Reichardt-Abbott Company, Inc., was eventually adjudicated bankrupt. At the time of bankruptcy, its assets were insufficient to pay its general creditors in full, and it had no surplus. Wangemann’s executrix filed a claim against the bankrupt estate based on the outstanding renewal notes. The bankruptcy trustee, Robinson, objected to the claim being treated on par with those of general creditors, appealing a lower court ruling that had allowed the claim.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: When a corporation issues a promissory note to a stockholder for the repurchase of its own stock, is the enforceability of that note against the now-insolvent corporation determined by its solvency at the time of the agreement or at the time payment is demanded?
The stockholder’s claim on the promissory note is subordinate to the claims Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fug
IRAC Legal Analysis
Complete IRAC Analysis for Higher Grades
IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the exact format professors want to see in your exam answers. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full briefs combine holding, analysis, and rule statements formatted to match what A+ students produce in exams. These structured briefs help reinforce the essential legal reasoning patterns expected in law school.
Legal Issue
When a corporation issues a promissory note to a stockholder for the repurchase of its own stock, is the enforceability of that note against the now-insolvent corporation determined by its solvency at the time of the agreement or at the time payment is demanded?
Conclusion
This case establishes a crucial creditor-protection rule in corporate finance, holding that Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco
Legal Rule
A transaction in which a corporation repurchases its own stock is valid Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi
Legal Analysis
The court characterized a corporation's repurchase of its own stock not as Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- A corporation’s agreement to repurchase its own stock is enforceable only