Court Enjoins "Squeeze-Out" Capital Call by Controlling Members of LLC
Baseball has the squeeze play. Majority owners of closely held companies have the squeeze out. It's only fitting, then, that I refer to what happened in the recently decided case, Cooperstown Capital, LLC v. Patton, 2009 NY Slip Op 02277 (3d Dept Mar. 26, 2009), involving a dispute between majority and minority owners of a baseball camp, as the "squeeze-out play."
Martin and Brenda Patton owned land in upstate New York about 20 miles from the Baseball Hall of Fame in Cooperstown. In 2004, they entered into agreements with Cooperstown Capital, LLC to build and operate a baseball camp and hotel on the Patton land. The Pattons contributed the land to Abner Doubleday, LLC ("Abner") in exchange for 35% membership interests in Abner and a second company formed to operate the baseball camp, called Cooperstown All Star Village, LLC ("CASV"). Cooperstown Capital paid $400,000 and gave a $1 million promissory note for 35% interests in the two companies. A third investor, Marco Lionetti, acquired the remaining 30% interests.
The $1 million promissory note was made payable to the Pattons, but the operating agreements designated the payments as operating expenses of the companies and treated Cooperstown Capital's additional capital contributions as credits against the Patton note.
Continue Reading...LLC Dissolution Case Illustrates Peril to Minority Member of Compulsory Capital Contribution Provision in Operating Agreement
I've previously featured LLC member disputes in which the defending side achieves a potentially decisive tactical victory by saddling the complaining side with some or all of the defending side's legal expenses via indemnification and advancement provisions in the operating agreement and under LLC Law Section 420 (see here and here).
The Appellate Division, Second Department's recent decision in Fuiaxis v. 111 Huron Street, LLC, 58 AD3d 798 (2d Dept Jan. 27, 2009), presents a variation on the same theme, this time highlighting the controlling faction's successful reliance on the operating agreement's compulsory capital contribution provisions to force the complaining member to subsidize his opponents' legal defense.
George Fuiaxis is one of four members each with a 25% interest in a real estate company called 111 Huron Street, LLC. An earlier lower court decision in the case indicates that Fuiaxis sued under LLC Law Section 702 to dissolve the LLC after he elected to withdraw, alleging that it was no longer reasonably practicable to carry on the business because of his withdrawal or, alternatively, due to "internal deadlock" between him and the other three members. (Alas, the decision does not address how Fuiaxis had standing to seek dissolution after his withdrawal, or how the 25%-75% alignment created deadlock.)
Continue Reading...A Case of Mutual Frustration: Minority Member of LLC Can't Compel Dissolution, Majority Can't Compel Buyout
It's the perfect LLC storm: Accusations by the minority member of overreaching and breach of fiduciary duty by the controlling members, no operating agreement, and an LLC statute that affords neither party a judicial means of achieving the separation they each want.
The case, Matter of Koutelos (Mouhlas Realty, LLC), was decided last month by Queens County Supreme Court Justice Patricia P. Satterfield (read decision here). The petitioner, Mary Koutelos, holds approximately 15% membership interest in Mouhlas Realty, LLC which was formed in 2000 as a member-managed LLC. The decision doesn't describe the LLC's business or tell us if Koutelos is actively involved in running it. All we can glean is that Koutelos filed a petition under LLC Law Section 702 for judicial dissolution of the LLC based on allegations of overreaching and breach of fiduciary duty by two of the other three members, apparently involving a capital call and/or loan to be used for compensation of one or more member-managers; the members have no operating agreement; and the other members refused Koutelos's request to adjourn a meeting.
The decision also tells us that the "respondent" -- we don't find out if this refers to the LLC or one of the other members individually -- filed an answer with a counterclaim for an "equitable buyout" conditioned on the court applying a 30% discount for lack of marketability in valuing the petitioner's interest.
Continue Reading...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...