Two recent cases, one from the Second Department and one from Suffolk County Justice Garguilo, shed light on some of the more nuanced issues in shareholder oppression litigation: the “equitable” prejudgment interest rate to be applied to a buyout under BCL 1118, and the relationship between a claim for dissolution and one for money damages.
Continue Reading Beyond Fair Value: When Shareholder Oppression Demands Interest and Damages
Did a 25% shareholder forfeit her equity in an entertainment industry management company when she announced her intention to retire? Learn the answer in this week’s New York Business Divorce.
Continue Reading Retirement of Working Owners of Closely Held Business Entities: What’s Your Plan?
This week’s New York Business Divorce takes us to the Garden State for a delightfully-written, post-trial decision by retired, recalled Appellate Division Judge Clarkson S. Fisher, Jr.
Cheshun v Sikand, Opinion [NJ Super Ct, Monmouth County May 7, 2025]), was a dissolution proceeding under New Jersey’s version of the Revised Uniform Limited Liability Company Law (“RULLCA”) between two 50/50 LLC member-managers who founded and operated an entity they hoped would perform clinical drug trials, but which never really got off the ground.
A couple of lessons emerge from Cheshun.
First, it seems obligatory for close entity owners and their litigation counsel to throw stones, cast aspersions, and lay blame for the business’s demise. But like marriages, sometimes business relationships fail because of good faith disagreements and reasonable, dashed expectations. Sometimes nobody is to blame. And that is ok.
Second, business owners may agree to part ways, but the decision to do so does not sever the existence of one’s ongoing fiduciary duties. Fiduciary duties continue through the conclusion of the wind up process. In the words of Judge Fisher, where a business entity is in a “state of un-woundedness,” failure to heed one’s fiduciary duties – even after an agreement to separate – can prove costly.Continue Reading A Message of Acceptance from the Garden State
Spring in New York has ushered in a fresh crop of noteworthy decisions on intra-LLC disputes. Headliners include a boost to members’ rights to compel an accounting courtesy of the First Department, a procedural refresher on LLC dissolution and the applicable standard, and a winding dispute over membership bequests in the Surrogate’s Court.
This week’s New York Business Divorce discusses a case involving an LLC member dispute in which the plaintiff was hoisted on his own petard or, to paraphrase an email that came to light in discovery, stepped into his own “wolverine trap.”
Continue Reading LLC Minority Member Gets Caught in His Own “Wolverine Trap”
This week’s New York Business Divorce features a failed attempt at removing restaurant manager on a preliminary injunction motion.
Business appraiser liability? A minority owner of an LLC recently took a run at it, alleging that a valuation firm conspired with the majority owners to undervalue his interest for a compelled buyout under the operating agreement. Learn how the court handled this novel issue in this week’s New York Business Divorce.
Continue Reading Business Appraiser Liability? That’s a New One.
It’s been 15 years since the Second Department’s decision in Matter of 1545 Ocean Avenue, LLC, 72 AD3d 121, 2010 NY Slip Op 00688 (2d Dept Jan. 26, 2010), which established the standard for judicial dissolution of limited liability companies. Under that standard, a New York LLC should be judicially dissolved when the management of the company is unable or unwilling to permit or promote the stated purpose of the entity, or continuing the entity is financially unfeasible.
That standard has proved both enduring and highly fact-specific, producing over the last decade and a half a landscape of judicial decisions finding that specific conduct and circumstances do—or do not—warrant dissolution.
I’ve also seen at least some disconnect between that standard and the real interests of many LLC members. On the one hand, the standard focuses on two things: (i) the stated purpose of the LLC as set forth in the operating agreement, and (ii) the financial feasibility of the LLC. On the other hand, in many cases, the “stated purpose” as set forth in the operating agreement is boilerplate that the owners never considered. And the financial feasibility of the LLC usually is a given; people tend not to litigate over failing businesses. Most owners who resort to judicial dissolution do so for other reasons.
Many LLC members seek judicial dissolution as a means to resolve distrust of or perceived misconduct by their co-owners. And while there is room for consideration of those things in the “unable or unwilling” language of the dissolution standard, a court faithfully applying the 1545 Ocean Avenue standard and a party seeking his day in court about allegations of member misconduct might feel like they’re speaking different languages.
A recent decision from New York County, Otsuka v Shimura, No. 159202/2020 (Sup Ct, New York County 2025), serves as a fine springboard to highlight that disconnect, discuss the timing of an LLC dissolution claim, and take stock of the current LLC dissolution landscape.Continue Reading Stated Purpose vs. Stated Problem: Court Sticks to the Script for LLC Dissolution
The qualifying phrase, “Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in this Agreement,” can be a highly useful and efficient means to clarify the hierarchy of otherwise potentially competing contract provisions. It can also trigger thorny litigation when two “notwithstanding” clauses arguably conflict with one another, as in the case featured in this week’s New York Business Divorce.
Can a partnership dispute be premature and untimely simultaneously? That was the unfortunate outcome for a hapless general partner in this week’s New York Business Divorce.
Continue Reading Premature or Untimely? Both at the Same Time? When to Sue as a General Partner