NY

DelawareThe common perception among practitioners familiar with the business entity laws of New York and Delaware is that Delaware law generally is friendlier to, and more protective of, majority ownership and management interests.

Two recent cases — one from each state — highlight at least one important area where the common perception does not apply: majority rights under the statutory default rules to adopt or amend an LLC operating agreement without the consent of all the members.

The difference between the two states can have critical consequences for both majority and minority members of the many LLCs that, for better or worse, are formed without a written operating agreement.

The New York case is one I previously wrote about on this blog. Last January, in Shapiro v Ettenson, the Appellate Division, First Department, in a case involving a three-member LLC that was formed without a written operating agreement, affirmed a lower court’s decision construing Section 402 (c) (3) of the New York LLC Law (“except as provided in the operating agreement . . . the vote of a majority in interest of the members entitled to vote thereon shall be required to . . . adopt, amend, restate or revoke the articles of organization or operating agreement”) to permit the two-member majority to adopt a written operating agreement almost two years after the LLC was formed and began operating, without the third member’s consent and notwithstanding certain provisions in the agreement that modified the statutory default rules adversely to the third member. Continue Reading Delaware Ruling Highlights Difference With New York Over Amending LLC Agreements

StandingThis article was co-authored by Franklin C. McRobertscounsel in the Uniondale office of Farrell Fritz and a member of the firm’s Business Divorce Group.


The rules of “standing” in business divorce litigation generally require that the plaintiff have an ownership interest in the business entity at the time of the alleged wrongful conduct and, for derivative claims brought on the entity’s behalf, throughout the litigation.

In Lewis v Alcobi, 2017 NY Slip Op 30664(U) [Sup Ct NY County Apr. 6, 2017], Manhattan Commercial Division Justice Anil C. Singh considered whether a parent’s assignment of her young daughter’s membership interest in a limited liability company as security for the other parent’s unpaid debt deprived the daughter of standing to sue, despite the daughter’s claim to have received no consideration for the assignment.

The case provides useful lessons for litigating disputes of this sort and, perhaps more importantly, for transactional attorneys considering the use of LLC membership interests to secure payment obligations. Continue Reading Assignment of LLC Interest Defeats Standing Despite Alleged Lack of Consideration

Buy-SellAt least on paper, shotgun provisions in shareholder and operating agreements provide an elegant and efficient buy-out solution when business owners can’t get along and need a divorce. In a two-owner company, the one who “pulls the trigger” names a price at which he or she either will buy the other’s interest or sell to the other. The other owner has a specified amount of time to decide which. Since the offeror doesn’t know who will be the buyer, in theory there’s a great incentive to name an objectively fair price. The agreement usually also will prescribe payment terms. No need for appraisal. No fuss. No muss.

I’m not aware of any data-based studies on the subject, but I believe experienced lawyers would concur that shotgun clauses, although frequently included in owner agreements, are rarely invoked. Why is that? I can only speculate that owners generally prefer other ways to achieve a breakup without the uncertainty of knowing who will end up with the business. Also, owners are reluctant to be the trigger-puller, that is, there’s a natural preference to be the one with the option to buy or sell at a price named by the other.

Shotguns also can suffer from informational and financial asymmetries between the owners, a problem highlighted in my two-part, online interview of Professors Landeo and Spier some years ago (here and here). As Professor Spier described it: Continue Reading Aim Carefully Before Pulling Trigger on Shotgun Buy-Sell Agreement

litigiousThe U.S. reportedly has the world’s highest number of lawyers per capita (1 for every 300 people) and the 5th highest number of lawsuits per capita (74.5 for every 1,000 people, topped only by Germany, Sweden, Israel, and Austria).

If, as it appears, litigation has become a national pastime in the U.S., then why, when we describe someone as having a “litigious nature,” does that label carry such opprobrium? Is there an unspoken assumption that anyone who brings a multitude of lawsuits must not have meritorious claims, or has ulterior motives to sue? Then again, we recently awarded the presidency to someone who, according to a USA Today analysis, has sued or been sued in 3,500 cases over the last 3 decades.

These observations are spurred by a recent court decision in Pokoik v Norsel Realties, 2017 NY Slip Op 50459(U) [Sup Ct NY County Apr. 12, 2017], in which Manhattan Commercial Division Justice Jeffrey K. Oing cited the plaintiff’s “litigious nature” among the factors supporting dismissal of his derivative lawsuit brought against the fellow members of a real estate partnership, some of whom are relatives of the plaintiff, Leon Pokoik. Granted, it was not cited as the primary factor, but it’s one of those atmospheric factors in a litigation whose impact is hard to measure. Continue Reading Suing on Behalf of People You’re Suing Can Sink a Derivative Lawsuit — Especially If You Have a Litigious Nature

jaime-dalmeidaForensics means different things to different people in different contexts. But what does it mean in the context of valuing equity interests in closely held business entities?

You’ll learn the answer – and a lot more – in the latest episode of the Business Divorce Roundtable podcast in which I interview Jaime d’Almeida, a Managing Director at industry leader Duff & Phelps in its Disputes & Investigations practice.

To hear the interview, click on the link at the bottom of this post.

Jaime’s valuation and forensic credentials include Senior Appraiser of the American Society of Appraisers and Certified Fraud Examiner. Based in Boston, Jaime has over 20 years of experience in economic and valuation analysis and consulting, and has provided both deposition and trial testimony on valuation and damages issues. Jaime also is a contributing author of Litigating the Business Divorce, the recently published, must-have treatise that I wrote about here.

My interview of Jaime covers a lot of interesting ground, including:

  • defining forensic analysis in valuation
  • the goal of forensic analysis in a valuation engagement
  • forensics methodology
  • the lawyer’s role in the forensic process
  • when to engage the analyst
  • the interplay of forensics and the different valuation approaches
  • forensics and valuation date
  • the types of company records typically sought by the forensic analyst

If you enjoy the podcast, and if you haven’t done so already, check out prior episodes of the Business Divorce Roundtable featuring interviews with leading experts in the field of business divorce and valuation. Please also consider subscribing to the podcast on iTunes, SoundCloud, or your other favorite podcatcher.

No U TurnFranklin C. McRoberts, counsel in the Uniondale office of Farrell Fritz and a member of the firm’s Business Divorce Group, prepared this article.


Article 11 of the Business Corporation Law governs dissolution of closely held New York business corporations. Article 11 has existed, more or less in its current form, for decades. Some of its provisions have been heavily litigated, including Sections 1104 and 1104-a governing judicial dissolution for deadlock and oppression, and Section 1118 governing buyout of a minority’s interest in an oppression proceeding. Other provisions have received surprisingly little attention.

In Morizio v Roeder, 2017 NY Slip Op 50248(U) [Sup Ct Albany County Feb. 17, 2017], Albany County Commercial Division Justice Richard M. Platkin addressed one of these latter, relatively-overlooked sections.

Section 1116 of the Business Corporation Law governs the circumstances in which a party who sues for dissolution may later change his or her mind and withdraw the claim for dissolution. The key language of the statute provides that a petitioner who wishes to withdraw his or her claim must “establish” to the court “that the cause for dissolution did not exist or no longer exists.”

What does that mean? Only a few courts have considered the issue, including a decision last year by Justice Timothy Driscoll in the Cardino case. As it turns out, a leading case to consider the legal standard to withdraw a dissolution claim was an earlier decision in the Morizio litigation. Continue Reading Withdraw a Dissolution Claim? Not So Fast

USA

It’s true that the statutory and common-law rules at play in business divorce cases can vary widely from state to state. But it’s also true that court decisions in one state can influence courts in other states, and can provide business divorce lawyers with fresh ideas and novel arguments. I like to think of it as legal cross-pollination.

For many years, one of the nation’s leading authorities on business organization law, Professor Elizabeth Miller at Baylor Law School, has been collecting, curating, and publishing detailed synopses of cases from around the country involving LLCs and other unincorporated business entities, with a large complement of dissolution, breach of fiduciary duty, and other cases featuring disputes among business co-owners. It’s a terrific resource for keeping up with nationwide case law developments. Some of Professor Miller’s summaries can be found online, but the best way for lawyers to gain access to them on a regular basis is to join the LLCs, Partnerships and Unincorporated Entities Committee of the ABA’s Business Law Section. That’s the same committee that sponsors the incomparable LLC Institute every year.

Professor Miller’s most recent sampling of (non-Delaware) partnership and LLC cases was presented at a session of the 2017 Spring Meeting of the Business Law Section in New Orleans. I’ve selected from it and further distilled in the following summaries a quintet of business divorce cases from a quintet of states other than New York. Continue Reading Business Divorce Nation: Five States, Five Cases

jurisdiction1I can count on one hand the number of federal court cases I’ve featured on this blog since I started it almost 10 years ago — and that’s no coincidence.

Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, requiring either the presence of a claim arising under federal law — so-called federal question jurisdiction — or the opposing litigants are citizens of different states — so-called diversity jurisdiction.

Federal question jurisdiction rarely exists in business divorce cases involving the internal affairs of closely held business entities which are the peculiar province of state law. Federal courts are especially loathe to decide judicial dissolution cases, to the point where they routinely exercise their discretionary power to abstain from exercising jurisdiction even in dissolution cases where diversity exists (read here).

Inevitably there are some small number of diversity suits filed in federal court asserting state-law claims other than dissolution between business co-owners. Even in these cases, however, there is a potential trap for the unwary plaintiff if the subject business entity is a limited liability company, as nicely illustrated by a Manhattan federal judge’s decision last month in Sullivan v Ruvoldt, Opinion and Order, 16 Civ. 583 [SDNY Mar. 24, 2017]. Continue Reading Beware Diversity Trap in Federal Court Business Divorce Cases Involving LLCs

Brothers1Like most civil cases, the vast majority of business divorce disputes get resolved before trial, which is disappointing for us voyeurs since only at trial with live witnesses undergoing cross examination does one get the full flavor of the case’s factual intricacies, credibility issues, and the emotional undercurrents.

Even rarer are written post-trial decisions by judges with detailed findings of fact and conclusions of law, which is why I was so pleased recently to come across a trio of expansive post-trial decisions by Queens County Justice Timothy J. Dufficy in three business divorce cases involving family-owned businesses.

One of them, Shih v Kim, was featured in last week’s post on this blog, in which a romantically-involved couple started a business while engaged and continued as business partners even after the engagement broke off — until the defendant went rogue by diverting cash to himself and diverting business to a competing company.

The two other cases form interesting bookends, metaphorically speaking. Both involve businesses run by brothers. Both involve challenges to the documented ownership of the business. In one case, Justice Dufficy rejected a bid to establish an undocumented, de facto partnership interest and dismissed the case. In the other, Justice Dufficy upheld the documented, 50/50 ownership of an LLC, granted dissolution, and appointed a receiver. Let’s take a closer look. Continue Reading A Pair of Unbrotherly Business Altercations Go to Trial

HeartFranklin C. McRoberts, counsel in the Uniondale office of Farrell Fritz and a member of the firm’s Business Divorce Group, prepared this article.


When a romantic affair evolves into a business relationship, the eventual falling out can be especially messy. Even more so if the former lovers try to keep the business going after the romance ends. That is a theme from a recent post-trial decision by Queens County Justice Timothy J. Dufficy in Shih v Kim, 2017 NY Slip Op 50281(U) [Sup Ct Queens County Mar. 2, 2017].

Among other interesting issues in Shih was whether a capital investment in a business can be considerd a “gift made in contemplation of marriage” under Section 80-b of the New York Civil Rights Law, a statute which requires return of an engagement or wedding gift — often a ring — to the giver if the marriage does not occur. Let’s see how Judge Dufficy ruled on that and the other legal issues in the case. Continue Reading When Love and Business Fails