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

Litigating

There’s little doubt in my mind that “business divorce” has achieved name recognition as a distinct subgenre of commercial litigation whose regular practitioners, by dint of experience dealing in and out of court with the many and varied legal and practical issues arising from dysfunctional family and non-family owned closely-held businesses, offer clients a level of expertise not shared by civil litigation generalists.

I like to think that my blog, in its tenth year and still chugging along, has contributed to the enhanced recognition along with the efforts of a small but growing cadre of fellow bloggers, contributors of articles in legal publications, and speakers at bar association programs and business valuation seminars.

Now, with the publication of a smartly constructed and well-written treatise called Litigating the Business Divorce (Bloomberg BNA 2016), the law practice of business divorce truly has come of age.

LBD, as I’ll call it, is the fruit of a two-year project led by contributing editors Kurt Heyman and Melissa Donimirski in collaboration with an all-star cast of contributing authors. Kurt is a partner and Melissa a senior associate at the firm of Heyman Enerio Gattuso & Hirzel LLP in Wilmington, Delaware. Kurt, a seasoned business divorce litigator whom I’ve known for about ten years and whom I interviewed last year for my podcast, is a founding Co-Chair of the Business Divorce Subcommittee of the ABA Business Law Section, Business and Corporate Litigation Committee. Continue Reading Announcing Must-Have Treatise on Business Divorce Litigation

limited partnershipNotwithstanding the ascendency of the limited liability company, the Delaware limited partnership continues to serve as an important, tax-advantaged vehicle for certain capital-intensive ventures — especially in the energy sector — featuring centralized management and limited liability for large numbers of passive investors.

Late last month, the Delaware Supreme Court handed down two noteworthy decisions springing from suits by limited partners challenging the fairness of conflicted transactions by general partners that were approved by conflicts committees. In one, the high court affirmed Chancery Court’s order rejecting a claim based on the implied duty of good faith and fair dealing where the transaction’s approval by the conflicts committee complied with the agreement’s safe harbor provision and thus contractually precluded judicial review. Employees Retirement System v TC Pipelines GP, Inc., No. 291, 2016 [Del. Sup. Ct. Dec. 19, 2016].

In the other, Supreme Court reversed Chancery Court’s post-trial decision holding the general partner liable in damages owed directly to limited partners for a conflicted, over-priced  “dropdown” transaction by the general partner. The high court disagreed with Chancery Court’s application of the Tooley standard, instead finding that the claims were exclusively derivative and that the post-trial, pre-judgment acquisition by merger of the partnership extinguished the plaintiff limited partner’s standing to seek relief. El Paso Pipeline GP Company, LLC v Brinckerhoff, No. 103, 2016 [Del. Sup. Ct. Dec. 20, 2016].

Together, the two decisions re-affirm the primacy of contract in the realm of alternative entities including limited liability companies, limited partnerships, and master limited partnerships. Continue Reading Limited Partners Take a Licking in Two Delaware Supreme Court Decisions

Bad Faith 1In New York, the bad faith defense in dissolution proceedings traces its lineage to Matter of Kemp & Beatley, 64 NY2d 63 [1984], a landmark ruling by the state’s highest court that set the standard for minority shareholder oppression under § 1104-a of the Business Corporation Law, where the court wrote in dicta that “the minority shareholder whose own acts, made in bad faith and undertaken with a view toward forcing an involuntary dissolution, give rise to the complained-of oppression should be given no quarter in the statutory protection.”

Several years ago, I gave headline treatment to Justice Vito DeStefano’s decision in Feinberg v Silverberg recognizing the bad faith defense as applicable also in deadlock dissolution cases between 50/50 shareholders under BCL § 1104 notwithstanding a line of appellate rulings indicating that the underlying reasons for dissension and deadlock are not relevant. In reconciling those seemingly contradictory cases, Justice DeStefano wrote that the “manufactured creation of the dissension . . . is the sine qua non of bad faith” which “would belie a finding that the shareholders’ dissension poses an irreconcilable barrier to the continued functioning and prosperity of the corporation.”

Has the bad faith defense similarly osmosed to LLC dissolution? While I’m not aware of any New York cases directly addressing the issue, a recent decision by Chancellor Ellen Hobbs Lyle of the Tennessee Business Court in Wilford v Coltea, Case No. 15-856-BC [Tenn. Ch. Ct. 20th Dist. May 16, 2016], echoes Justice DeStefano’s rationale in upholding a bad faith defense in a dissolution case involving a Delaware LLC whose two 50/50 members seemingly were at an alleged managerial impasse with no way out. Continue Reading Bad Faith Defense Gets Boost in LLC Dissolution Case

spaceballs

To Mel Brooks’ collection of hit films, Oscars, and countless other comedic works and awards can now be added the distinction of having his 1987 Star Wars parody, Spaceballs, cited by the decidedly non-comedic Delaware Court of Chancery in support of its construction of an LLC agreement’s provision for advancement and indemnification in a lawsuit arising from a soured business relationship between the majority and minority members of a Delaware company formed in 2007 called Quivus Systems, LLC.

The transcript decision by Vice Chancellor Tamika Montgomery-Reeves in Harrison v Quivus Systems, LLC, C.A. No. 12084-VCMR [Del Ch Aug. 5, 2016], granted summary judgment on a claim for advancement of legal expenses in favor of the plaintiff Harrison, a principal of Quivus’s 45% member and its former CEO who was terminated in 2014 and then sued the following year in Washington D.C. Superior Court by the 55% member, Soroof International Corp., allegedly for mismanagement, incompetence, and looting.

Harrison filed his Chancery Court action after Soroof rejected his demand for advancement for all expenses, including legal fees, he incurred and would continue to incur in defending against all but one count in the D.C. action, as well as in prosecuting his counterclaims in the D.C. action. Continue Reading When Will Then Be Now? Court Construes LLC Agreement’s Advancement Provision With An Assist From Spaceballs

shorts

It’s late August, when the lure of the seashore and vacation plans push aside all but the most serious work-related endeavors, and when I share with my readers a few short summaries of recent decisions of interest in business divorce cases.

First, we’ll look at a decision in a dispute among former law firm partners in which the court upheld a partnership agreement amendment by the defendant majority partners, reducing the plaintiff’s percentage interest after he announced his intention to withdraw but before the actual withdrawal became effective. Next up is a relatively rare decision in an LLC dissolution case granting a motion to disqualify defense counsel under the advocate-witness rule of professional conduct. In the third case highlighted below, the Delaware Chancery Court dismissed a books-and-records action for lack of standing where the shares issued to the plaintiff never existed.

Court Enforces Eve-of-Withdrawal Reduction of Partnership Interest

Zohar v LaRock, Short Form Order, Index No. 14826/10 [Sup Ct Nassau County July 25, 2016]Article 8-B of New York’s Partnership Law authorizes regulated professional practices to organize as registered limited liability partnerships. The LLP form is highly popular with law firms because it offers the same limited liability protection afforded corporation shareholders and LLC members, except for their own professional negligence or malpractice. The LLP otherwise is subject to the same statutes and common-law rules governing general partnerships, which give partners great leeway in ordering their own affairs in their partnership agreement. Continue Reading Summer Shorts: Partnership Interest Reduction and Other Recent Decisions of Interest

The tiny state of Delaware plays an enormous role in this country’s corporate life. Delaware has long been the overwhelmingly preferred state of incorporation for publicly owned companies, and its cutting-edge (many would also say pro-management) enabling acts for closely held business entities have made it an exporter to the other 49 states of countless privately owned corporations, limited partnerships, and limited liability companies that have no connection to Delaware other than their state of formation.

The Delaware judicial system serves an integral role in maintaining the state’s corporate hegemony. The Delaware Court of Chancery is widely viewed as the country’s preeminent business-law trial court by virtue of its broad jurisdiction over Delaware business entities both public and private, and thanks to a judicial selection process that promotes the best and brightest candidates for the court’s judgeships including one Chancellor and four Vice-Chancellors whose typically thorough and scholarly written opinions are closely followed by lawyers and judges throughout the country.

Business divorce practice nationwide is no less susceptible to the influence of the Delaware legislative and judicial juggernaut. In New York, as in other states that are home to many Delaware-formed business entities, the internal affairs doctrine mandates application of Delaware law to disputes among entity co-owners, and jurisdictional constraints require owners seeking the ultimate remedy of judicial dissolution to do so in the Delaware Chancery Court. The Chancery Court’s interpretation of Delaware business entity statutes governing internal relations among co-owners of closely held business entities also has had significant influence over the interpretation of counterpart statutes in other states by their judiciaries. (A prominent example of this is the Second Department’s 2010 decision in the 1545 Ocean Avenue case which drew heavily upon Delaware Chancery Court precedent in setting the standard for judicial dissolution of LLCs under Section 702 of New York’s LLC Law.)

HeymanLadigAll of which is why I’m excited to invite readers to listen to my most recent podcast episode on the Business Divorce Roundtable entitled “Business Divorce, Delaware Style” featuring my interview of two leading Delaware litigators — Kurt Heyman (photo left) and Pete Ladig (photo right) — talking about what it’s like to litigate business divorce cases in the Chancery Court and current developments in Delaware law affecting such cases including important decisions I’ve written about on this blog in the TransPerfect, Carlisle, and Meyer cases.

Click on the link at the bottom of this post to hear the interview.

Kurt Heyman is a founding partner of Proctor Heyman Enerio LLP in Wilmington, Delaware, where he focuses his practice on corporate governance, partnership and limited liability company disputes in the Delaware Court of Chancery. Kurt lectures and writes extensively on business divorce and other corporate governance topics, he’s Co-Chair of the Business Divorce Subcommittee of the ABA Business Law Section, and he leads the Business Divorce and Private Company Disputes group on LinkedIn.

Pete Ladig is Vice Chair of the Corporate and Commercial Litigation Group at Morris James also in Wilmington. Pete concentrates his practice in the areas of corporate governance and commercial litigation, stockholder litigation, fiduciary duties, partnership and limited liability company disputes, and class action and derivative litigation. He’s also active in the ABA Business Divorce Subcommittee and has published articles on business divorce topics including a must-read post on his firm’s blog called What Is Business Divorce? Pete also co-hosts a podcast called CorpCast discussing corporate and commercial law in Delaware.

If you’re interested in business divorce, you’ll certainly enjoy listening to my interview of Kurt and Pete, both of whom speak on the subject with great authority, insight, and passion.

LLCIf there’s a common theme to the trio of LLC cases highlighted in this post, it’s that having a well-crafted written operating agreement is no guarantee there won’t be a litigation dust-up, while not having a written operating agreement greatly enhances the odds of a legal dispute among members at some point down the road.

Let’s start with the well-crafted operating agreement in Estate of Calderwood v Ace Group International LLC, 2016 NY Slip Op 30591(U) [Sup Ct NY County Feb. 29, 2016], in which Manhattan Commercial Division Justice Shirley Werner Kornreich ruled that upon the death of the subject Delaware LLC’s majority member, under the express terms of Sections 9.7 and 7.1 of the LLC Agreement (read here), his estate was deemed a “Withdrawing Member” with no management rights and retaining solely the right to receive distributions. Continue Reading LLC Case Notes: Member Expulsion, Withdrawal, and LLC Purpose

Rosalyn H. Richter - Assocaite Justice, Appellate Division, First Department 042809

For more than 20 years, there’s been a split among New York’s several intermediate appellate courts on the question whether the state’s courts have subject matter jurisdiction in proceedings seeking judicial dissolution of foreign business entities.

No more. Last week, in a signed opinion by Associate Justice Rosalyn H. Richter (photo right), writing for a unanimous panel of the Manhattan-based Appellate Division, First Department, in Matter of Raharney Capital, LLC v Capital Stack LLC, 2016 NY Slip Op 01425 [1st Dept Feb. 25, 2016], the court abandoned its contrary 1994 ruling in Matter of Hospital Diagnostic Equipment Corp. and, realigning itself with decisions by the Brooklyn-based Second Department and Albany-based Third Department, held that New York courts lack subject matter jurisdiction over foreign company dissolution proceedings.

The Raharney case involves a petition filed in October 2014 in Manhattan Supreme Court by a 50% member of a two-member Delaware LLC with no written operating agreement, seeking judicial dissolution under § 18-802 of the Delaware LLC Act based on intractable deadlock (read petition here). The petition alleges that both members are New York residents, that the Delaware LLC’s place of business is New York, and that the LLC’s only connection to Delaware is its state of formation. The petitioner’s supporting memorandum of law predicated the court’s subject matter jurisdiction on Hospital Diagnostic in which the First Department found “without merit” the State Attorney General’s argument that the courts of New York lack subject matter jurisdiction to dissolve a foreign corporation. Continue Reading A Split No More: First Department Agrees, No Subject Matter Jurisdiction to Dissolve Foreign Business Entities

KleinbergerIn a post two years ago I described the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing as one of the least understood and most misused legal doctrines in the realm of shareholder and partnership disputes, inappropriately invoked by lawyers as often as not to allege breach of free-floating, fiduciary-like obligations untethered from the doctrine’s contractual foundation.

Here to explain what the implied covenant is — and, just as critically, what it’s not — is Daniel S. Kleinberger (pictured), Emeritus Professor of Law at William Mitchell College of Law. Professor Kleinberger is one of the country’s foremost scholars and leaders in legislative drafting projects concerning unincorporated business organizations. His lengthy bibliography includes widely-cited treatises on LLCs and partnership law along with innumerable articles and papers.

The Professor last graced this blog with a guest post in March 2015 on the subject of veiling piercing and LLCs. His current post on the implied covenant is an abridged version of a paper he presented this year at Tsinghua University’s School of Law in Beijing entitled “Delaware’s Implied Contractual Covenant of Good Faith and ‘Sibling Rivalry’ Among Equity Holders”. The post naturally focuses on the implied covenant’s articulation and application by the Delaware Supreme Court and Court of Chancery as the nation’s leading business court whose opinions often provide guidance to judges in New York and elsewhere grappling with their own, analogous common and statutory law.

I strongly encourage my readers who wish to learn more on the subject to read the unabridged version of Professor Kleinberger’s paper, including extensive footnotes which I found to be terrifically helpful. It’s available by clicking here

____________________________________________________________________________________

 

Delaware’s Implied Contractual Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing

© Daniel S. Kleinberger – 2015

Introduction 

An obligation of good faith and fair dealing is implied in every common law contract and is codified in the Uniform Commercial Code (“UCC”). The terminology differs: Some jurisdictions refer to an “implied covenant;” others to an “implied contractual obligation;” still others to an “implied duty.” But whatever the label, the concept is understood by the vast majority of U.S. lawyers as a matter of commercial rather than entity law. And, to the vast majority of corporate lawyers, “good faith” does not mean contract law but rather conjures up an important aspect of a corporate director’s duty of loyalty.

Nonetheless, Delaware’s “implied contractual covenant of good faith and fair dealing” has an increasingly clear and important role in Delaware “entity law” – i.e., the law of unincorporated business organizations (primarily limited liability companies and limited partnerships) as well as the law of corporations.

Because to the uninitiated “good faith” can be frustratingly polysemous, the following Part II “clears away the underbrush” by explaining what Delaware’s implied covenant’s “good faith” is not. Continue Reading Unraveling the Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing: Guest Post by Professor Daniel Kleinberger