The Business Divorce Law Report

January 27, 2017

Fight Over Transfer of Interests is Grounds to Expel Member of LLC and Partnership

An Illinois appellate court affirmed a finding of breach of fiduciary duty and the expulsion of a limited liability company member under a version of the Uniform Limited Liability Company Act. The case is of interest for the way it construes the model partnership and limited liability company acts.

Explusion of LLC Member After Transfer of Interests

The court in Kenny v. Fulton Assocs., LLC, 2016 IL App (1st) 152536 (Ill. App., 2016) holds first that under Illinois’ LLC statute the actual activities of the parties determined their fiduciary duties, not the agreements. The management of the entities were vested in one side as manager, but the day-to-day operations actually handled by the other side. The management of the business creates a fiduciary duty under Illinois law. The other significant holding is that refusing to honor a valid transfer of an interest is not just a breach of contract, but a breach of fiduciary duty. Finally, the court affirms the holding that when one of the principals is a lawyer that represents the firm, his breach of duty as an attorney is also a breach of fiduciary duty as a member or partner.

December 16, 2016

Anti-Reliance Clause in Purchase Agreement Defeats Fraud Claim

by Jay R. McDaniel, Esq.

The parties to a transaction, including a transaction that concludes a business divorce, will often include a provision that states that neither side is relying on verbal representations of the other. Most often, this provision refers to the due diligence that precedes a transaction, but it can also refer to other circumstances including the discovery in an ongoing litigation.

We were recently involved in a case in which one of the parties claimed that it had been fraudulently induced into a transaction, notwithstanding the substantial discovery that had occurred. It wasn’t a successful argument, but it added to the complexity of the case.

More often, however, there is a claim either that there were facts or circumstances that were hidden or that that there were oral representations made that were material to the decision to enter into the transactions. A recent decision of the Delaware Chancery Court in IAC Search, LLC v. Conversant LLC , C.A. No. 11774-CB (Del. Ch. Nov. 30, 2016) demonstrates that an anti-reliance provision in a contract can avoid such a fraud in the inducement claim.

December 15, 2016

What’s in that Buy-Sell Agreement Again? Better Take a Look

by Jay R. McDaniel, Esq.

A business divorce case came into the office a couple of years ago, one of the second-generation owners was looking to force one of the first generation owners — who never came to work anymore — into retiring and selling his interests.

We reviewed the shareholder ledger and the by-laws and the second generation had a clear majority of shares. So at least the majority could terminate the employment of the minority if that was the way they wanted to go, and he would then have the ability to bring a suit to be bought out. Or more likely, once he was fired, he would want to be bought out. So far, so good.

But then the buy-sell agreement. It provided a formula for valuation that was pegged to the equity accounts of the shareholders some 25 years earlier. The books and records for that time period had long since disappeared. In the end, we were able to piece together a guess about the equity accounts and to negotiate a package.

December 14, 2016

Texas Appeals Court Affirms Partnership Dissolution Verdict

by Jay R. McDaniel, Esq.

A partnership has no obligation to complete performance of its executory contracts, the Texas Court of appeals held in affirming a multi-million dollar trial court verdict involving a chain of TGI Fridays in Dallas.

The case involved a joint venture formed with TGI Fridays and several entites that qualified as “disadvantaged.” The joint venture operated restaurants in four Dallas International Airport terminals from 1995, but as a result of changes in FAA regulations and disputes among the joint venture participants, the enterpise began to unravel in 2004.

The case was tried to a jury, which apportioned substantial awards of damages and attorneys fees and found that good cause existed for the dissolution of the business in that it was no longer reasonably practicable to carry on the business in conformity with its governing documents.

December 14, 2016

Seven Business Litigation Best Practices that Address the Lack of Civil Trials

by Jay R. McDaniel, Esq.

Here is the hard reality. The chances that your case, or any case, will get to a real trial on the merits is way less than one in 10. The truth is that only between two and five cases out of 100 will be resolved with a trial.

What does that mean for a party drawn into civil litigation? The statistics point to a group of “best practices” that effective litigation counsel should employ. It is a blend of efficient trial preparation, motion practice, management of discovery and, perhaps most of all, advanced negotiation skills. We review some of those here as a starting point for developing a case strategy.

Civil Trials in Business Litigation is a Rare Event

November 9, 2016

Consent to Amended LLC Certificate is Dissociation

by Jay R. McDaniel, Esq.

We often think of the dissociation of a member from a limited liability company as a matter of expulsion. The majority typically wants to expel a problematic minority member from the LLC.

But one can also dissociate themselves by resigning as member, or, under the Revised Uniform Limited Liability Company Act (RULLC), by giving notice of their express will to withdraw as a member. This lawsuit tells us that there are no specific words required; the intent to quit if expressed to the LLC, will be sufficient.

Dissociation by Express Will of Member

November 1, 2016

LLC Distribution Needs Definition

by Jay R. McDaniel, Esq.

The Appellate Division sent a case back to the trial judge to figure out exactly what the owners of an LLC meant in a settlement agreement when it referred to when it linked a contingent payment to a “distribution.”

The case, which involves a relatively modest amount in dispute, is a cautionary tale arising from the use of a statutorily defined term in a context in which it just wasn’t clear what the parties were referring to. One of the parties pointed to the dictionary and the other the text of the statute.

Be Careful with that Word

October 27, 2016

LLC Member Enjoined from Competition

by Jay R. McDaniel, Esq.

An LLC member breached his fiduciary duty by competing with his own company, a trial court in New York City holds in issuing an injunction against one of the principals of a successful company that makes automated parking systems.

The case involves the company that makes Parkmatic parking systems, mechanical stickers and carousels for parking cars in limited spaces. The complaint in Zacharias v. Wassef alleges that the defendant Max Wassef responded to complaints of misconduct by his partner Zacharias by forming a new company to siphon off business using the Parkmatic name.

Limited Liability Company Member Claims Unfair Competition by Manager

October 26, 2016

Plaintiff Alleges Wrong in Derivative Suit Against Managers

by Jay R. McDaniel, Esq.

New York has recognized the right of limited liability company members and managers to bring derivative claims – that is, claims belonging to the LLC – against other members or managers. But, the derivative plaintiff needs to beware of the demand requirement or face having their case dismissed.

Derivative Suit Seeks Recovery for LLC of Management Fees

In a derivative case, the plaintiff is actually asserting a claim that belongs to the company. If there is a recovery, it goes to the company and the derivative plaintiff only gets individually what may, or may not, be passed through to the equity members. The law even provides for an award of attorney’s fees in some derivative cases to encourage shareholders or members to police the business.

October 26, 2016

Claims for Judicial Dissolution Not Easily Withdrawn

by Jay R. McDaniel, Esq.

New York’s oppressed shareholder statute has a unique provision that was initially intended to prevent the oppressed shareholder from destroying a viable business. That is because the New York statute otherwise gives the court only two options: send the oppressed shareholder away or force the dissolution of the business.

Other states give court’s more discretion, and a judge also has the ability to force a sale of an interest. New York’s statutory scheme, however, takes a different approach. (See our discussion here of some of the quirks of New York’s oppressed shareholder statute: Business Divorce New York Style.) One of the wrinkles in the statute, however, is that once a litigant invokes the oppressed shareholder provision in Business Corporations Law § 1104-a, it’s very difficult to stop the process.

Peter Mahler’s New York Business Divorce blog reports on an decision by a trial judge in Nassau County’s commercial part who declines to allow the plaintiff to withdraw a claim under BCL 1104-a. In that case, the plaintiff tried to get out of the substantive and procedural limitations that flow from the conclusory assertion of a claim under 1104-a.