Articles Posted in Dissolution

by

  • Shareholder disputes in a closely held business threaten the business and personal financial interests of the owner.

  • New Jersey law provides the owners of a closely held corporation with rights and remedies that assure access to information and the financial benefits of ownership.

  • Closely held corporations can use effective planning and negotiated solutions to avoid litigation.

Shareholder disputes are often disruptive, emotional, and, if left unresolved, devastating to the closely held corporations that are the backbone of New Jersey’s economy. When these disagreements arise in the closely held business with only a handful of key stakeholders, they can escalate quickly, placing the company’s operations — and the persona futures of the owners — at risk.

Shareholder Disputes: It Isn’t Just Business, It’s Personal

Shareholder disputes aren’t just about financial disagreements—they often stem from deeply personal frustrations, competing visions, or the inherent complexity of running a business where power and resources are shared by just a few individuals.

New Jersey Shareholder Disputes Attorney | Minority Oppression Attorney New Jersey CorporationWhether the conflict involves voting deadlocks, allegations of unfair treatment, or disagreements over financial management, the stakes are high for all involved.

Understanding the common causes of these disputes—and the legal remedies available—can make the difference between a resolution that preserves the business and a breakdown that leads to its dissolution.

The Common Causes of Shareholder Disputes

Every closely held corporation is unique, but the disputes they face tend to follow familiar patterns. Recognizing these common issues is the first step in addressing them effectively. Continue reading

by

  • When one partner fails to respond to a notice of breach from the other partner, the relationship may be so damaged that dissolution is required.

  • Courts may apply the ‘not reasonably practicable’ standard in determining whether a business can continue in its present form.

  • The ‘not reasonably practicable standard’ is incorporated in the partnership statutes of most states.

An appellate court orders the dissolution of a general partnership after taking up the question of what exactly the statutory standard of “not reasonably practicable” means for the second time in a reported opinion.

The issue of what it means for particular conduct or circumstances to make it “not reasonably practicable” isOcean_Resort_Casino_-_Atlantic_City_01 often a critical issue in business divorce cases. We see it in both in judicial dissolution cases and in those states that permit judicial expulsion (i.e., dissociation) of owners.

Yet, the case law excamining the contours of the reasonably practicable is sparse, relatively speaking, despite the fact that the standard is applied in the limited liability company and partnership laws of most states.

AC Ocean Walk, LLC v. Blue Ocean Waters, LLC, the Appellate Division affirmed the judicial dissociation of Blue Ocean Waters, LLC from its partnership with AC Ocean Walk, LLC, and the subsequent dissolution of the partnership.

The court affirmed the lower court’s decision that Blue Ocean Waters’ failure to respond to a notice of breach constituted grounds for judicial dissociation under the Revised Uniform Partnership Act (RUPA) as adopted in New Jersey. Continue reading

by

  • Divorcing couples that own a business together must address business ownership issues as part of the matrimonial issues, in particular the distribution of assets.

  • An important issue when a couple divorces is how to address the family owned business in which one of the spouses was involved before the marriage.  Courts may  distribute the value of owner’s share to the non-owner spouse.

  • The divorcing couple may also have individual equity interests in a jointly owned business and must decide whether to buy out one of the spouses or continue on together as co-owners.

The divorcing couple that owns a business together has to manage the family and business relationships simultaneously. That typically involves terminating their relationship as well.

And if one of the parties owned the business before the marriage, such as a stake in a family business, it means dissecting the interests of the divorcing spouses in a way that may implicate the interests of still others.

portrait-of-a-confident-young-man-and-woman-workin-2023-11-27-05-08-51-utc-1024x683

Portrait of a confident young man and woman working together on a farm.

In a recent case before the Supreme Court in Montana, the issue was how to deal with a distribution of property when one of the sons of a ranching family was divorced from his wife after more than 30 years of marriage.

Business Divorce Issues Related to Divorcing Business Owners

The wife claimed an interest in the limited partnership that owned the ranch and argued that it should be valued for the purposes of the parties’ property settlement and not as a family business. The limited partnership vigorously disputed that she had any interest in the business.

Contact us for more information or to discuss your issue on business governance issues. 

The case, In re Frost, relies on the liberal provisions of state law that provide that anything owned in whole or in part by the married individuals is distributable in a divorce. The trial court rejected the claim of ownership, but the award in some ways treated the rancher’s wife as if she had. Continue reading

by

  • The failure of the parties to submit evidence on an issue during arbitration caused a failure to decide all of the issues of the dispute.

  • A Court may modify an arbitration award rather than vacate and permit partial enforcement while permitting litigation of claims were not included in an arbitration hearing.

  • Failure to clearly define the mechanics of an arbitration and to agree on the issues that the arbitrator is to decide can make an award unenforceable.

This court decision addresses a recurring issue when parties agree to resolve their dispute by arbitration: exactly what was it that we agreed to arbitrate? Unless the answer to that question is clear and unambiguous, trouble is likely to follow. Continue reading

by

  • The Internal Affairs doctrine requires a court to apply the law of the state where a business was formed, or organized, to disputes between the owners regardless of the circumstances.

  • New Jersey courts have applied a more traditional analysis of conflict of laws issues and may refuse to apply the law of another state if the parties or the issues have no connection to the state of formation.

  • The Revised Uniform Limited Liability Company Act provides that the law of the state of organization governs the rights of members and their liability to third parties.

 

A New Jersey need not necessarily honor a Delaware choice of law provision in an operating agreement if the company has no substantial relationship to the state where it was organized, the Appellate Division holds in a case involving a Delaware limited liability company and an Israeli corporation.

courthouse-gf011b4688_1280-300x287This holding in which the appellate court reversed and remanded a trial court’s decision rejected the per se application of the “internal affairs” doctrine in which courts apply the law of the state where a business was organized to internal disputes without regard to the other principles that often govern choices about which state’s law applies to a lawsuit.

The Importance of Choice of Law Decisions

This is a technical issue, but an important one that has some very practical decisions.  Business entities are formed under the laws of individual states, but have the right to do business in any state.  That means as a practical matter that corporations and limited liability companies often do business in states, or even countries, other than whether they were formed.  When a dispute arises in one state among the owners of a business formed in another state, the choice of law and authority of the court to act can be a thorny  issue. Continue reading

by

  • Limited Liability Company laws in New Jersey and many states provide a cause of action for the oppression of minority members of company against those in control of the business.

  • Oppression of a minority LLC member is measured by the reasonable expectations of the minority member in those states that have adopted the Uniform Limited Liability Company Act

  • Courts assess reasonable expectations by looking at the operating agreement, the behavior of the members and purpose of the members in joining the business.

Oppression of minority llc members turns on reasonable expectationsMajority rule in any limited liability company is not without its risks, in particular the potential for the majority owners to oppress the minority members, together with the difficulty the minority member is likely to have in recouping the investment in the business.

Minority members of a limited liability company may always voluntarily dissociate, or resign, as a member, at which point they give up the right to participate in management.  As a “dissociated member,” the minority member who has resigned is entitled to his or her share of profits, but not to participate in decisions or get full information about the operations of the business. Continue reading

by

  • Minority shareholders of a closely held corporation may be subjected to oppressive conduct by the controlling majority that deprives them of the benefits of their investment. 

  • Oppressed minority shareholder actions vindicate the rights of the minority owner to participate in the management and share in the economic benefits of the company.

  • A court may order the majority to buy the minority member’s interest at fair value, to sell the corporation as a going concern, for damages or take other actions to fashion an appropriate remedy.

anger-2728273_1920-1024x683Under New Jersey business law, minority oppression refers to conduct in which the majority shareholders or directors of a corporation engage in behavior that prejudices the rights or interests of the minority shareholders unfairly.

We see shared holder oppression in a variety of action: Continue reading

by

  • A plaintiff seeking to bring a derivative claim on behalf of a corporation, limited liability company or limited partnership must be “suitable” and represent the interests of the business.

  • A member of a limited liability company may sue individually to recover or protect the member’s individual right.  New Jersey law does not, however, permit a member to bring a claim for involuntary dissociation, or expulsion, as a direct claim.

  • Courts have discretion to treat derivative claims as direct claims under New Jersey law, but may bar a derivate claim brought by a limited liability company that is antagonistic to the other owners.

Derivative claims in limited liability company lawsuit

Family in South Jersey Sand and Gravel Business Torn by Claims of Wrongdoing in Derivative Action

Hostility among the owners of a limited liability company is a staple in business divorce litigation, as are the derivative claims commonly asserted by the minority against the majority.  But one New Jersey court has dismissed minority derivative claims because that hostility, the court said, made the member an unsuitable derivative plaintiff.

Is this case, Cave v. Cave, from the Superior Court in Burlington County, an outlier?  Or does it merely reflect a more thorough analysis of the requirements for a derivative action.  If this decision were to be widely followed, it could change the landscape of litigation among the owners of closely held businesses. Continue reading

by

  • The removal of a member from a limited liability company, known as involuntary dissociation, is permitted by statute in most states and may also be permitted in an operating agreement.

  • Removal is permitted when a member has engaged in wrongful conduct that has or will materially affect the company or when the member has repeatedly breached the operating agreement.

  • Removal may also be permitted when a member files for bankruptcy or if it is not reasonably practicable for the LLC to continue with them as a member.

There are plenty of choices that we make in our lives that we would like to undo. Some we can and some we can’t. Breaking up with a business partner is the topic of this discussion. More particularly, how a member of a limited liability company can be expelled from the business. We’ll cover the circumstances in which members can be expelled, when it’s easy and when it’s not.

Continue reading

by

    • A business divorce is the process by which the owners of a business separate their business interests.  The process involves negotiation and may also require litigation.

    • These cases can be divided into four phases: the emergent phase, the examination phase, the valuation phase and the resolution phase.

    • Most owner lawsuits end in a negotiated transaction because it gives the parties more flexibility over the manner in which the case is resolved.

We’re going to look at business divorce in terms of the four phases that the typical case goes through from its start to the time that is resolved, either through settlement or trial.We should start with the most basic definition of what is a business divorce. I use the term to describe the process by which people who were in a business together disentangle themselves. Continue reading

Contact Information
Jay R. McDaniel, Esq.
(973) 602-3915
Weiner Law Group LLP
New Jersey Office
629 Parsippany Road
Parsippany, NJ 07054
New York City Office
90 Broad Street
New York, NY 10004
This newsletter may be considered advertising for legal services under the laws and rules of professional conduct of the jurisdictions in which we practice. The information on this site is of a general nature, is not intended as legal advice, and must not be taken as legal advice. We provide legal advice only to clients of the firm. You should not rely on the content of this article, but should consult a lawyer about legal issues. This letter does not establish any attorney-client relationship. We are are admitted to practice in the states of New Jersey and New York.

Attorney Advertising

Before making your choice of attorney, you should give this matter careful thought. The selection of an attorney is an important decision. If this letter contains inaccuracies or is misleading, you may report the same to the Committee on Attorney Advertising, Hughes Justice Complex, P.O. Box 37, Trenton, NJ 08625.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

Please do not include any confidential or sensitive information in a contact form, text message, or voicemail. The contact form sends information by non-encrypted email, which is not secure. Submitting a contact form, sending a text message, making a phone call, or leaving a voicemail does not create an attorney-client relationship.

Copyright © 2024, Jay R. McDaniel, Esq.
JUSTIA Law Firm Blog Design