This week’s New York Business Divorce presents an informative interview on the topic of business divorce litigation with the Honorable Justice Ira B. Warshawsky, who recently retired after 25 years on the bench. You won’t want to miss it.
With about 1,300 pizzerias in New York City, it’s inevitable that some of them wind up the subject of involuntary corporate dissolution proceedings, such as the one recently decided by Nassau Commercial Division Justice Ira Warshawsky in Matter of DiMaria involving a petition brought by a minority owner alleging shareholder oppression and majority owners counter-alleging that the petitioner himself engaged in wrongful conduct. Learn more in this week’s New York Business Divorce.
When you can’t be a fly on the wall, a discreetly placed tape recorder may be the next best thing. That, at least, is one of the lessons taught by Feinberg v. Silverberg, decided last month by Nassau County Justice Ira Warshawsky, in which the court granted a preliminary injunction in a shareholder dispute based on tape recordings that captured the defendant planning to oust his business partner. Don’t miss it in this week’s New York Business Divorce.
A recent decision by Nassau County Commercial Division Justice Ira Warshawsky in Bombard v. Xitenel, Inc. takes a fresh look at the contract-based rules surrounding a disputed claim of stock ownership in a company operating a genetics-testing laboratory. It’s in this week’s New York Business Divorce.
A decision last month by Nassau County Commercial Division Justice Ira Warshawsky, and two recent decisions by the Delaware Chancery and Supreme Courts, clarify issues of standing and scope in proceedings under the business corporation and LLC statutes for inspection of company books and records. Read more in this week’s New York Business Divorce.
This week’s New York Business Divorce highlights the contributions of the Nassau County Commercial Division Justices Stephen Bucaria, Ira Warshawsky and Timothy Driscoll to the body of business divorce case law, also featuring three of their recent decisions.
The Appellate Division, Second Department’s breakthrough decision in the 1545 Ocean Avenue case, in which the court redefined the standard for judicial dissolution of LLCs, recently marked its one-year anniversary. This week’s New York Business Divorce looks at several recent trial court decisions by Justices Warshawsky, Strauss and Pines in LLC dissolution cases to see how the new standard has fared.
What do three recent decisions by the Wisconsin Supreme Court, the Appellate Division in Albany, and Nassau County Justice Ira Warshawsky have in common? They all involve disputes over poorly designed buyout agreements that fail to define critical terms. It’s in this week’s New York Business Divorce.
This week’s New York Business Divorce revisits the buy-out valuation contest going into its third year in Sassower v. 975 Stewart Avenue Associates, LLC, on the occasion of a recent decision by Justice Ira B. Warshawsky rejecting the parties’ dueling motions for summary judgment on the question whether the mortgage balance should be deducted from the subject company’s sole real estate asset in determining the purchase price of the minority interest being valued.
In two recent decisions, courts in Delaware and New York addressed obligations of non-managing members of LLCs to maintain the confidentiality of company trade secrets. These cases provide important lessons for attorneys who prepare LLC operating and employment agreements. It’s in this week’s New York Business Divorce.
The Appellate Division, Second Department last week affirmed the key rulings by Justice Ira Warshawsky in the Murphy v. U.S. Dredging valuation case, including his application of a marketability discount to entire enterprise value rather than limiting it to good will. Learn more in this week’s New York Business Divorce.
Courts generally will enforce broad arbitration clauses in shareholders’ agreements to compel arbitration of corporate dissolution disputes. This week’s New York Business Divorce highlights an interesting, recent decision by Justice Ira B. Warshawsky in which he denied a request to compel arbitration of a dissolution petition based on limiting language in a separate termination clause in the shareholders’ agreement.
As if we needed another lesson in the perils of failing to enter into a written shareholders’ agreement, last week the Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed a lower court ruling rejecting a buyout demand by the expelled shareholder of a law firm organized as a professional corporation. It’s in this week’s New York Business Divorce.
Shareholder and operating agreements typically contain provisions restricting the right to transfer stock or membership interests. A recent decision by Justice Ira Warshawsky in Verderber v. Commander Enterprises Centereach, LLC, in which he refused to grant a preliminary injunction enforcing a transfer restriction, prompts this week’s New York Business Divorce to examine the ancient rule against unreasonable restraints on alienation.
A one-of-a-kind, high-stakes dissenting shareholder appraisal proceeding is the subject of a fascinating decision by Justice Ira Warshawsky, in which he tackles disputes over trapped-in capital gains, marketability and minority discounts, widely disparate expert valuations, and entitlement to attorney’s fees and interest. Read about it in this week’s New York Business Divorce.
Fights over the good will value of a business are not uncommon in corporate dissolution and buyout proceedings. In this week’s New York Business Divorce, read about a recent appellate decision holding that courts lack authority to appraise good will post-dissolution in the absence of an agreement of the parties that good will is a distributable asset of the corporation.
Including buy-sell provisions in a shareholders’ or operating agreement is a good idea, but if the agreement fails to clearly define basic valuation parameters it may lead to the very litigation that the agreement was intended to avoid. Case in point: Justice Ira Warshawsky’s recent decision in Sassower v. 975 Stewart Avenue Associates, LLC, featured in this week’s New York Business Divorce.
Two feuding 50-50 shareholders enter a buy-sell option agreement in which either one can offer his shares to the other at a fixed price and, if the offer is declined, the corporation is voluntarily dissolved. One of them later offers his shares. The other declines. Sounds like simple plan to avoid a messy court battle, right? Not quite, as you’ll find out in this week’s New York Business Divorce discussing a recent decision by Justice Ira Warshawsky.
There is nothing “unique” or “even unusual” about deadlock dissolution cases that place them outside the scope of a broad arbitration clause in a shareholders’ agreement, rules Justice Ira Warshawsky in a recent decision featured in this week’s New York Business Divorce.
If you’re going to accuse your business partner of bad acts and ask for judicial dissolution of the business, be prepared to settle or take the case all the way to trial. That seems to be the message given to the petitioner in a recent case highlighted in this week’s New York Business Divorce, when the court turned down her request to withdraw the case “without prejudice.”
Professional service corporations are “interesting” and “strange creatures”, says Justice Ira B. Warshawsky in a recent decision rejecting a claim for statutory buyout in a suit brought by a terminated partner in a law firm organized as a professional corporation. Get the story in this week’s New York Business Divorce.
When company co-owners fight, “Duck for cover!” may be the best advice for the company’s outside accountant. In this week’s New York Business Divorce, read about a CPA firm that got caught in the crossfire of a dissolution contest and ended up having to defend itself against allegations of improper partisanship.
Justice Ira Warshawsky of Nassau County Supreme Court’s Commercial Division has issued a “BIG” decision (as in discount for Built-In Gains tax) in a stock valuation arising out of a dissolution proceeding brought by minority shareholders claiming oppression. Read about it in this week’s New York Business Divorce.
Read the last in a series of postings about a high-stakes dissolution donnybrook involving a luxury car dealership.