Photo of Franklin C. McRoberts

Franklin C. McRoberts

Subscribe to Franklin C. McRoberts's Posts

Franklin C. McRoberts focuses on litigated business disputes between closely-held business owners, including partnership, corporation, and LLC derivative suits, dissolutions, breakups, buyouts, cash-out mergers, and valuations.

Contact:Read more about Franklin C. McRoberts

Pre-answer motions to dismiss for untimeliness are exceptionally common in business divorce litigation. Statute of limitations analysis can be deceptively simple in theory, but elusively difficult in practice, even for veteran judges. Identifying the applicable statute of limitations is just one of three steps a court must perform as part of its decision making process:

  • What’s the applicable statute of limitations?
  • What’s the accrual date of the claim?
  • Are there any applicable tolls or equitable exceptions?

A recent decision from the Albany-based Appellate Division – Third Department, Lambos v Karabinis (___ AD3d ___, 2025 NY Slip Op 03367 [3d Dept June 5, 2025]), is a reminder to business divorce litigants – on either side of the v. – not to overlook that crucial third step in the statute of limitations analysis, which can rescue complaints from pre-answer dismissal even if they allege misconduct from decades earlier.Continue Reading A Tardy Plaintiff’s Best Friend: The Open Repudiation Doctrine

Pre-answer motions to dismiss for untimeliness are exceptionally common in business divorce litigation. Statute of limitations analysis can be deceptively simple in theory, but elusively difficult in practice, even for veteran judges. Identifying the applicable statute of limitations is just one of three steps a court must perform as part of its decision making process:

  • What’s the applicable statute of limitations?
  • What’s the accrual date of the claim?
  • Are there any applicable tolls or equitable exceptions?

A recent decision from the Albany-based Appellate Division – Third Department, Lambos v Karabinis (___ AD3d ___, 2025 NY Slip Op 03367 [3d Dept June 5, 2025]), is a reminder to business divorce litigants – on either side of the v. – not to overlook that crucial third step in the statute of limitations analysis, which can rescue complaints from pre-answer dismissal even if they allege misconduct from decades earlier.Continue Reading A Tardy Plaintiff’s Best Friend: The Open Repudiation Doctrine

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

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.

In this week’s business divorce follies, an imprecisely-drafted notice of default and cure letter leads to a stunning defeat for a group of limited partners who tried to remove a limited partner “for cause” under the partnership agreement.
Continue Reading No Unforced Errors Please: “For Cause” Removal Provisions Mean What They Say and Say What They Mean

This week in New York Business Divorce, read about what appears to be the first New York appeals court decision to enforce a waiver-of-dissolution provision in an LLC operating agreement, a departure from prevailing appellate case law holding broad anti-dissolution provisions void as against public policy.
Continue Reading New Year, New Law – New Opacity – for LLC Owner Disputes