Indemnity Provision Can Tilt the Playing Field in Litigation Between Business Partners

For the business owner without access to the company checkbook, and who therefore must foot his own legal bills, about the only thing worse than litigating a business divorce with a co-owner is seeing her use company funds to pay her lawyer.

Case precedent makes it pretty clear that, in a straightforward dissolution proceeding in which the company is a nominal party rather than an active litigant, neither side has the right to tap company funds for legal fees.  But often the dissolution claim by the non-controlling owner is tied to other claims seeking to impose personal liability against officers or managers of the company.  When that happens, the defending officer-owners may invoke a contractual right to indemnity including advancement of legal expenses by the company.  Alternatively, where the defending officer-owners have board control, they may authorize indemnity and advancement under indemnification statutes.

The latter occurred in Van Der Lande v. Stout, 3 AD3d 261 (1st Dept 2004), where a minority member of an LLC brought  a derivative action accusing the majority members of waste, fraud and mismanagement, alongside a separate proceeding to dissolve the LLC.   Over the plaintiff's objection the defendant majority members made a substantial capital call upon all members -- including the plaintiff -- to fund the advancement of legal fees in defense of the derivative action.  The plaintiff moved for a preliminary injunction to prevent the LLC from compelling him to make contributions.  The trial court denied the motion.  The appeals court upheld the order under the authority of Section 420 of the New York Limited Liability Company Law, which allows the LLC to advance and pay its members' legal expenses absent a final adjudication that the individual defendants acted in bad faith, were dishonest or personally gained profit to which they were not entitled.  "That plaintiff commenced the lawsuit which caused the need for the additional contribution", the court added, "does not constitute an exception to his obligations to the LLC."

Continue Reading...

Anatomy of a Dissolution Slugfest: Part II

This is the second in a series of postings on a multi-faceted corporate dissolution battle waged in Nassau County Supreme Court called Matter of Marciano (Champion Motor Group, Inc.) involving three partners and a luxury automobile dealership.

Part I of the series (read it here) summarized the basic facts and discussed the defendants’ initial challenge to the plaintiff Marciano’s standing to seek dissolution. The court’s decision identified evidence suggesting that, as the defendants’ argued, the plaintiff deliberately elected not to have his alleged 38% ownership interest reflected in the corporate records or in tax filings. Ultimately, however, the court refused to dismiss the case because of the disputed facts surrounding the issue of plaintiff’s share ownership.

In this Part II, we examine the several other issues of interest addressed by Justice Ira Warshawsky in his initial decision in the case dated September 5, 2006.

1.     Defendants’ argument that their exclusion of plaintiff from the business was reasonable following his indictment for stock fraud.

The majority owner defendants contended that, even assuming plaintiff Marciano could establish his ownership percentage in Champion above the minimum 20% required by the dissolution statute (BCL § 1104-a), their decision to exclude him from any involvement in the business, following his criminal indictment for stock fraud in December 2004, was reasonable as a matter of law.

As with the issue of stock ownership, Justice Warshawsky concluded that the reasonableness of defendants’ exclusionary actions "must await further factual development through discovery in the underlying action". The defendants’ evidence of damaging repercussions and concrete economic injury to the business from Marciano’s indictment, the court found, was "anecdotal" and lacked "determinative foundational support in the record".

Continue Reading...