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...Decision Lowers the Bar for Former Partner's Claims of Fraudulent Buyout
When non-controlling partner A sells out to controlling partner B, following which B sells the company to a third party at a disproportionately high premium over A's price, A may suspect that B withheld information pertaining to the company's value at the time of A's sale. The question is, does A have a valid claim against B to recover a share of the re-sale profits? Does caveat venditor give way to a fiduciary-based, affirmative obligation on B's part to disclose to A any and all information material to the sale price?
An opinion handed down last week by an appellate court in Manhattan appears to lower the bar for such a lawsuit, and sends a cautionary message to transactional counsel concerning the effectiveness of seller representations and releases in partner buyout agreements.
In Littman v. Magee, 2008 NY Slip Op 05347 (1st Dept June 10, 2008), Steven Littman held an 18.7% membership interest in Rockwood Realty Associates LLC, a real estate investment firm formed in 1996 and managed by another LLC controlled by Rockwood's majority owners. Littman's 28-page complaint essentially alleged that the majority owners engaged in a squeeze-out through property sales that forced Littman to incur large personal tax bills on undistributed K-1 profits, contrary to an alleged "understanding" when the company was formed that distributions sufficient to cover taxes would be made.
Continue Reading...LLC Member Disputes and the Attorney-Client Privilege
Over at the newly revived and highly recommended Unincorporated Business Law Prof Blog, there's news of a recent decision by a U.S. District Court in Nevada holding under federal law that for purposes of attorney-client privilege, a limited liability company is more akin to a corporation than a partnership and on that basis, ruling that communications between the LLC's manager and the LLC's counsel need not be disclosed to an LLC member and former manager who brought an action against the LLC. The case, Montgomery v. eTreppid Technologies, LLC, 2008 WL 1826818 (D. Nev. Apr. 18, 2008), appears to be the first published decision on this issue.
The privilege issue frequently arises in business divorce litigation where, typically, a non-controlling faction seeks access to the controlling faction's communications with attorneys who've worked for, and been paid by, the company. The issue tends to get further complicated by allegations that the legal work for the company in fact is being done for the interests of the controlling faction.
Montgomery involved a manager-managed LLC with a board-like management structure, hence an easier comparison to the corporate form. It'll be interesting to see how federal and state courts grapple with the issue in other cases, and whether courts will distinguish Montgomery in cases involving member-managed LLCs.
Caplash Redux: 50% Member Cannot Hire Lawyer to Represent LLC in Dispute with Other 50% Member
When 50-50 business partners have a falling out, the ensuing battle for the high ground can lead one of them to take hostile action in the company's name without the other's consent.
Examples of the phenomenon, recently featured in this blog, include the case of Hellman v. Hellman, where the court upheld the authority of a 50% shareholder as president to enter into a lease opposed by the other shareholder, and Sports Legends, Inc. v. Carberry, where the court refused to authorize a lawsuit brought in the company's name by one 50% shareholder against the other.
Then there's Caplash v. Rochester Oral & Maxillofacial Surgery Associates, LLC. About four months ago I wrote about an appellate decision in the Caplash case in which the court reversed a trial court order dissolving a medical practice LLC because of unresolved factual issues concerning the plaintiff's standing to seek dissolution. The issue before the court was whether to give legal effect to the plaintiff's letter to the company resigning his employment, and thereby terminating his LLC membership, where the company's requisite acceptance of the resignation was by letter from an attorney whose authority under the operating agreement to act on the company's behalf was not established. The appellate court sent the case back to the trial court for a hearing to determine the issue.
Since then, there's been a flurry of activity in the Caplash case and a new trial court decision which, I'm happy to report, supplies many of the underlying facts missing from the appellate decision. The recent decision, by Justice Kenneth R. Fisher of the Monroe County Supreme Court, Commercial Division, addresses two issues of interest. First, it examines the interplay between the parties' operating agreement and the LLC Law in deciding whether the lawyer engaged by one member with 50% voting power had the authority to accept on the LLC's behalf the other member's resignation. Second, it determines whether the same lawyer could act on the entity's behalf in asserting claims against the resigning member for wrongful competition and other economic injury to the LLC.
Continue Reading...LLC Member's Marital Woes Lead to Loss of Membership Interest
Shareholder agreements for close corporations often include provisions designed to protect the company and its shareholders against involuntary stock transfers or other potentially disruptive court decrees arising from the dissolution of a shareholder's marriage. The same holds true for limited liability company (LLC) operating agreements and their members. Sometimes, as this week's featured case illustrates, such provisions can backfire when a member's marital woes coincide with internal disputes among the LLC's members.
Matter of Madelone (Viscomm Group, LLC), 18 Misc 3d 1131(A) (Sup Ct Albany County 2008), involved an LLC formed in 2003 by three members to engage in advertising and public relations. Initially, the three members -- Whitten, Harrington and Madelone -- each held a one-third interest. Whitten served as manager. Subsequently, a fourth person was brought in as a 10% member, reducing the others to 30% each.
In 2005, when Whitten was experiencing marital difficulties, he proposed certain amendments to the operating agreement which the membership adopted. The amendments required a member who files, or whose spouse files, for legal separation or divorce to sell, and the other members to buy, the membership interest of the member involved in the marital proceedings. The amendments also established a method for computing the purchase price and the payment terms. The following year, Whitten filed for separation from his wife whereupon he relinquished his position as manager and was appointed to a salaried position with the company, only to be reinstated as a member and manager upon reconciling with his wife.
Continue Reading...Statute and Cases Create Uncertainty Over LLC Member's Right to Inspect Books and Records
Strained relations between managing and non-managing members of limited liability companies (LLC) sometimes lead to fights over the former's denial to the latter of access to company records. Section 1102 of the New York Limited Liability Company Law (LLCL) sets forth a three-part scheme governing the maintenance of, and member access to, LLC records.
The first part, Section 1102(a), requires that every LLC maintain five specific categories of records:
(1) if the limited liability company is managed by a manager or managers, a current list of the full name set forth in alphabetical order and last known mailing address of each such manager;
(2) a current list of the full name set forth in alphabetical order and last known mailing address of each member together with the contribution and the share of profits and losses of each member or information from which such share can be readily derived;
(3) a copy of the articles of organization and all amendments thereto or restatements thereof, together with executed copies of any powers of attorney pursuant to which any certificate or amendment has been executed;
(4) a copy of the operating agreement, any amendments thereto and any amended and restated operating agreement; and
(5) a copy of the limited liability company's federal, state and local income tax or information returns and reports, if any, for the three most recent fiscal years.
Note that the preceding list limits financial information to recent tax returns. This becomes more important under the second part, Section 1102(b), which provides for member access to LLC records including all the records mandated under Section 1102(a), as follows:
Continue Reading...Any member may, subject to reasonable standards as may be set forth
in, or pursuant to, the operating agreement, inspect and copy at his or her
own expense, for any purpose reasonably related to the member's interest
as a member, the records referred to in subdivision (a) of this section, any
financial statements maintained by the limited liability company for the three
most recent fiscal years and other information regarding the affairs of the
limited liability company as is just and reasonable.
Court Grants Specific Performance of LLC Members' Buy-Sell Agreement
On its surface, the case of Berle v. Buckley discussed below is about routine contract law, the question being whether an exchange of letters between two parties constituted a binding agreement or merely an unenforceable expression of intent. What makes it compelling reading is its wrenching setting -- the breakup of a family as well as a business -- and the undeniable, unpredictable human element at play as the two parties, one with a lawyer and the other without, made important decisions with known or unknown legal consequences in a tightly compressed time frame.
The Facts:
Beatrice Berle and Abdon Buckley never married, but for 13 years they lived and worked together on a 500-acre farm in upstate New York, producing organic goat cheese, straw and hay. They also produced two children. At some point, things went wrong for Berle and Buckley, very wrong. Berle accused Buckley of physical, sexual, verbal and mental abuse. In 2007, Berle petitioned the court for sole custody of the children and obtained a protective order banning Buckley from entering the farm property.
The farm business was owned through a limited liability company called Berle Farm, LLC, of which Berle held a two-thirds membership interest and Buckley held the other third. Wishing to sever her business ties with Buckley, Berle forwarded to him a letter addressed to her from her own lawyer, dated September 10, 2007 (the "September 10 Offer"), outlining how Buckley's interest could be purchased by Berle as well as the procedures for judicial dissolution of the LLC if Buckley refused to sell. The September 10 Offer proposed to purchase Buckley's interest for $268,666 based on the appraised value of the farm plus the fair market value of the LLC's assets and other equipment, net of a loan balance due Berle. It also proposed a lump sum payment subject to specified terms and conditions including a requirement that Buckley not enter into any farming operation or reside within 20 miles of the farm.
Buckley didn't have a lawyer. On September 12, 2007, Buckley and Berle's lawyer had a telephone conversation which the lawyer then confirmed in a letter sent by fax the same day to Buckley, advising him to retain counsel; confirming Buckley's agreement to the terms of the September 10 Offer except that Buckley wanted to farm and/or reside on family property in Cambridge, NY; advising Buckley that his latter proposal was acceptable if all other terms of Berle's offer were acceptable to Buckley; and informing Buckley that the purchase price needed to be adjusted to reflect Buckley's removal of "several thousand dollars of cash from the safe located at the Berle Farm property". The letter closes by requesting Buckley to "signify his consent to the foregoing terms by signing this letter in the space below" and returning it before the close of business on September 13, 2007, and that, otherwise, Berle will "commence legal proceedings for the dissolution of Berle Farm, LLC".
Continue Reading...Judicial Dissolution of the Unprofitable LLC
This is a tale of two cases, decided five years apart, involving my all-time favorite business divorce topic: judicial dissolution of the limited liability company (LLC). The cases raise the interesting question whether a member may seek dissolution on the ground that the LLC is not profitable.
First, a bit of background for the uninitiated. The LLC is an unincorporated business entity that combines the limited liability benefits of the corporation with the favorable pass-through tax treatment of partnerships. Compared to the highly structured, mandatory provisions of the business corporation laws, the LLC laws offer far more flexibility and freedom of contract among the LLC members to order their ownership, economic and managerial relations as they see fit. LLCs are fast on the way to becoming the preferred form of closely held business organization. Already, in a number of states including Delaware, new LLC filings outnumber new corporation filings.
The New York LLC Law's sparsely worded provision for judicial dissolution, codified in Section 702 of the LLC Law, borrowed its language from the limited partnership law. Section 702 provides in relevant part:
Continue Reading...On application by or for a member, the supreme court in the judicial district in which the office of the limited liability company is located may decree dissolution of a limited liability company whenever it is not reasonably practicable to carry on the business in conformity with the articles of organization or operating agreement.
Roundup of 2007 Business Divorce Cases
The New York Law Journal recently published, for the 9th consecutive year, my annual review of business divorce cases (read it here). Most of the cases discussed in the article have been mentioned in previous postings.
Here's a rundown of the article's choices for 2007's most interesting business divorce cases, with links provided to the cases and to previous postings:
- Dissolution and Right of First Refusal: Matter of Schneck (R&J Components Corp.) (discussed here) and Matter of Schwimmer (El-Roh Realty Corp.), where two judges reached opposite results on the issue of whether the petitioner's filing of a dissolution petition triggered a right of first refusal and mandatory buyback under the shareholders' agreement.
- LLCs and Temporary Receivers: At the Airport, LLC v. Isata, LLC (discussed here) in which the court held that the LLC Law does not authorize the court to appoint a temporary receiver until after dissolution is ordered.
- Grounds for Dissolution: Matter of Cheung (Ho Foong Shiu Realty Corp.) and Matter of Livolsi (111 Glen Street Corp.) (discussed here) in both of which the courts denied dissolution petitions brought by 50% shareholders claiming oppression by the other shareholder.
- Restrictive Covenants: Matter of Autz (Ronald C. Fagan, M.D. and Arthur Lutz, M.D., P.C.) (discussed here) where the court ruled that the sale in liquidation of the company's good will is a sale "under compulsion" and therefore does not trigger an implied covenant not to solicit customers.
- Pre-Conversion Agreements: Matter of Hochberg (Manhattan Pediatric Dental Group, P.C.) (discussed here) in which the court compelled arbitration of a dissolution case under an arbitration clause in a partnership agreement that pre-dated the conversion of the business to a professional corporation.
- Partner Limited Liability Shield: Ederer v. Gursky (discussed here) where New York's top court interpreted Section 26(b) of the Partnership Law as not shielding partners in limited liability partnerships from personal liability against claims for breach of the partnership's or partners' obligations to each other.
If you'd like to read some of my previously published annual reviews, look under Links on the right sidebar of this blog's home page where you'll find links to my articles covering the years 2003 through 2006.
Next week, New York Business Divorce returns to Anatomy of a Dissolution Slugfest, Part III.
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...LLC Members May Bring Derivative Suits
The New York Court of Appeals (the state's highest court), in a split decision with a vigorous dissent by three of the court's seven judges, today resolved the hotly debated question whether members of New York limited liability companies may bring derivative suits on the LLC's behalf. Answer: they may. Here's the decision in Tzolis v. Wolff.
A number of lower courts, in refusing to grant member standing to sue derivatively, interpreted the LLC Law's legislative history as indicative of the legislature's deliberate omission of statutory authority for derivative suits. The Court of Appeals majority held otherwise, finding the legislative history "too ambiguous to permit us to infer that the Legislature intended wholly to eliminate, in the LLC context, a basic, centuries-old protection for shareholders, leaving the courts to devise some new substitute remedy" (p. 11).
Waving the separation of powers banner, the dissenters accuse the majority of "judicial fiat" by "effectively rewrit[ing] the law to add a right the Legislature deliberately chose to omit", adding: "The proponents of derivative rights for LLC members -- who were unable to muster a majority in the Senate -- have now obtained from the courts what they were unable to achieve democratically" (p. 20).
The availability to LLC members of derivative rights will have a substantial impact on LLC member relations and the kind of litigation that may ensue when members seek judicial recourse. Without such rights, members holding minority interests in LLCs had little recourse against majority abuses that caused direct injury only to the LLC (e.g., taking excessive compensation or other forms of self dealing). The LLC Law's provision for judicial dissolution has not proved to be a potent remedy in the face of typical operating agreement provisions giving broad management control to the majority owners. Today's decision in Tzolis evens the playing field by providing an alternative avenue for judicial relief.
Decision Highlights Interplay Between Employment Status and LLC Membership
Closely held companies with multiple owners actively involved in the business sometimes use employment agreements between the company and the owners, separate and apart from the shareholders’ agreement (for corporations) or operating agreement (for LLCs). Such employment agreements are especially prevalent in medical practices where, among other reasons, restrictive covenants are routinely used to prevent departing doctors from establishing competing practices in the same locality.
Quite often the shareholders’ or operating agreement and the employment agreement will provide that, upon termination of employment, the shareholder or member is required to redeem his or her interest in the company on specified terms. Disputes and litigation, including proceedings for judicial dissolution of the business, may erupt when the outgoing owner perceives enough of a disparity between the specified compensation (or lack thereof) and the “real” value of his or her interest.
A decision last week by an intermediate appellate court in Rochester, involving a medical practice organized as an LLC, highlights the interplay between the interest redemption triggered by termination of employment and the threshold issue of standing to seek judicial dissolution of an LLC under Section 702 of the Limited Liability Company Law. The statute confers standing to seek dissolution upon members only.
In Caplash v Rochester Oral & Maxillofacial Surgery Assoc., LLC, the trial court summarily granted the plaintiff’s application to dissolve the practice. On appeal by defendant, the panel of five appellate judges unanimously reversed the lower court’s decision on the ground that defendant raised a genuine issue for trial whether, based on plaintiff’s apparent resignation, he was a member of the company within the meaning of the statute when he sought dissolution. Here’s what the court said:
Defendant submitted a letter from plaintiff to the company indicating that plaintiff was resigning as an employee of the company, and he also submitted a letter from an attorney who purported to accept plaintiff's resignation on behalf of the company. The company operating agreement unequivocally provides for the termination of membership in the event of the termination of a member's employment with the company, and plaintiff's employment agreement specifies that "This Agreement shall terminate . . . at any time by mutual agreement in writing by Employer and Employee." The record does not disclose the circumstances under which the attorney came to represent the company and whether such representation was authorized by the operating agreement. We thus conclude that there is an issue of fact whether plaintiff has standing to seek dissolution.
The appellate decision does not reveal any additional facts, such as the percentage membership interest of the plaintiff and whether, for instance, the issue concerning the attorney’s authority to act on behalf of the company arose because the plaintiff and defendants were 50/50 members. In any event, the decision is another reminder that, no matter how high temperatures rise when business partners are on the brink of breakup, careful reading of agreements and obtaining advise of counsel should precede any decisive steps.
Expelling an LLC Member
Let's say you're one of the many thousands of business owners who have opted to organize their business as a limited liability company (LLC) rather than as a traditional shareholder corporation. Let's also say you have a business partner, Member X, who has a 25% membership interest in the business. Time passes and, unfortunately, Member X has become an impediment to the business's success to the point you conclude that the business can't continue with Member X. Finally, let's say Member X rejects every reasonable offer you make to buy him out of the business.
What are your choices? Do you have to hire a lawyer to bring an expensive legal action to be rid of Member X? Is that possible? Wouldn't it be much easier if, as Brooklyn Dodger fans famously taunted, you could just "Throw da bum out!"?
Utah is a long way from Brooklyn, but a recent decision by that state's highest court got me thinking about the issue.
In the Utah case, Duke v. Graham, the issue was whether an arbitrator was legally authorized to expel LLC members as a remedy for breach of their duties owed to the remaining members. In upholding the expulsion, the court examined Utah law that expressly authorizes LLC members to expel another member either when so authorized by the parties' Operating Agreement or by applying to a court based on the member's misconduct.
Unlike Utah, New York's LLC Law (LLCL) has no express provision authorizing non-judicial member expulsion or authorizing one member to bring a legal proceeding to expel another. The only tangential mention of the issue is in Section 701(b) of the LLCL under which, absent contrary provision in the operating agreement, member expulsion is one of several occurrences that do not result in dissolution unless the other members agree to dissolve.
So where does that leave you and Member X? As with most issues surrounding the internal affairs of LLCs, the answer lies in the operating agreement. A carefully drafted operating agreement should include dispute resolution and buy-sell provisions that enable the parties to separate their interests when they no longer can get along. The key is, at the outset of the business relationship, to create efficient exit mechanisms that provide all parties with a fair degree of financial security and business continuity. If the operating agreement provides for expulsion of a member under specified circumstances or by a specified majority vote, to avoid disruption and legal expense it also should provide the expelled member with payment for the fair value of his or her membership interest. At the same time payment terms must ensure the company's future viability. Absent such agreement, the fate of the business will be dictated by negotiating muscle or expensive legal proceedings including possible dissolution.
LLC Dissolution and Receivers
New York’s statutory scheme for dissolution of closely held business entities sometimes looks like a crazy quilt. For instance, for reasons that defy all logic, a petition for dissolution of a business corporation based on shareholder oppression triggers an absolute right on the part of the other shareholders to avoid dissolution by purchasing the petitioner’s shares for fair value, but if the petition is based on director or shareholder deadlock, there’s no buyout right. A petition for dissolution of a business corporation requires service upon the state tax commission and publication notice of the order to show cause in advance of the hearing, but no such service or publication is required in a proceeding for judicial dissolution of a limited liability company (LLC).
Here’s another. The statute governing judicial dissolution of LLCs, contained in Section 702 of the LLC Law (LLCL), has no provision for appointment of a temporary receiver to protect the company’s assets pending the dissolution proceeding. In contrast, Section 1113 of the Business Corporation Law (BCL) expressly authorizes a court to appoint a temporary receiver for that purpose in a dissolution proceeding.
The divergence on this point between the BCL and the LLCL is highlighted in a recently decided case called At the Airport, LLC v. Isata, LLC, 15 Misc 3d 1145(A) (Sup Ct Nassau County June 6, 2007). The case was brought by a 20% member of an LLC seeking its dissolution based on income diversion, financial mismanagement, and denial of access to company records. In a decision by Nassau County Supreme Court Justice Leonard B. Austin, the court notes that the only provision of the LLCL authorizing appointment of a receiver or liquidating trustee, found in LLCL Section 703(a), by its terms applies after the company has been dissolved. Said the court, "[petitioner] is putting the cart before the horse since there must first be a finding of the right to judicial dissolution before a receiver can be appointed."
The petitioner in that case was forced to seek appointment of a temporary receiver under the more formidable standards for receivership found in Article 64 of the Civil Practice Law and Rules. The court held that he failed to make the requisite clear showing that the company’s property was in imminent danger of being materially injured or destroyed, and therefore denied the application for appointment of a receiver.
The petitioner in the same case fared no better on a subsequent application for reconsideration based on newly discovered evidence (read opinion here). If anything, the court's second ruling makes the point more emphatically, that compared to applications involving corporations under the BCL, the courts have strictly limited authority to appoint a temporary receiver for an LLC prior to an order of dissolution.
Be Aware of Differences Between LLC and Corporation Dissolution
Judicial dissolution of a New York limited liability company (LLC) is governed by Section 702 of the LLC Law (LLCL), whereas judicial dissolution of a closely held business corporation is governed by Article 11 of the Business Corporation Law (BCL). Under Section 702, a court may order LLC dissolution “whenever it is not reasonably practicable to carry on the business in conformity with the articles of organization or operating agreement.” That’s it. No more.
Article 11 of the BCL is more expansive. Section 1104(a) authorizes a petition for judicial dissolution by a 50% shareholder based on various deadlock scenarios. Section 1104-a permits judicial dissolution at the behest of an “oppressed” minority shareholder or where the controlling shareholders divert or waste company assets or otherwise are guilty of illegal or fraudulent actions toward the other shareholders.
Depending on the provisions of the LLC operating agreement, conduct that would constitute grounds for dissolution under Article 11 of the BCL also may constitute grounds under LLCL Section 702. But not always, as one minority member of an LLC recently found out when the court dismissed his request for judicial dissolution. According to the court’s decision, the minority member alleged that the majority members engaged in “illegal, fraudulent and oppressive conduct” – terms that are lifted right out of BCL Section 1104-a. The court ruled that “[w]hile such allegations are grounds for dissolution under [BCL] § 1104-a, they are not grounds for dissolution of a limited liability company”. The case, Bonanni v. Horizons Investors Corp., was decided by Justice Elizabeth Hazlitt Emerson of the Suffolk County Supreme Court, Commercial Division.
The lesson is clear: A complaint or petition for dissolution of an LLC should reflect Section 702’s provisions by alleging a genuine conflict between, on the one hand, the adverse member’s alleged misconduct or other conditions warranting dissolution and, on the other hand, the terms of the operating agreement or articles of organization.
