Franklin C. McRoberts

Subscribe to Franklin C. McRoberts's Posts

The sudden death of Alexander Calderwood, the brilliant but troubled co-founder of the Ace brand of hotels, resulted in some fierce litigation between Calderwood’s estate and Calderwood’s LLC co-member over the nature of his estate’s membership interest in the company after his death. The litigation came to a head earlier this month, when Justice Barbara R. Kapnick issued a scholarly decision for a unanimous panel of the Appellate Division, First Department in Estate of Calderwood v ACE Group Int’l, LLC, 2017 NY Slip Op 08750 [1st Dept Dec. 14, 2017].

Boiled down, the question on appeal was whether, under Delaware law, Calderwood’s estate was a bona fide member of the LLC with all of a member’s associated rights and privileges, or instead, a mere assignee of Calderwood’s membership interest. As written about in a post last Spring (read here), New York County Commercial Division Justice Shirley Werner Kornreich issued a decision dismissing most of the Estate’s amended complaint, holding that the Estate lacked membership status in the LLC upon Calderwood’s death. Let’s see how the appeals court considered the issue. Continue Reading Delaware Contractarian Principles Prevail in Appeal Over Deceased Ace Hotel Founder’s LLC Interest

When you want to sue to dissolve a business in New York on behalf of the estate of a deceased shareholder, to which court should you go: Supreme or Surrogate’s Court?

For many practitioners, the Commercial Division of the Supreme Court, a specialized court in New York focusing on complex business-related disputes, is the venue of choice. Most types of disputes have a minimum monetary threshold for eligibility in the Commercial Division. Manhattan’s threshold is the highest – $500,000.  The rules of eligibility for cases to be heard in the Commercial Division, which you can read here, have three exceptions to the monetary threshold – one of which lists “[d]issolution of corporations, partnerships, limited liability companies, limited liability partnerships and joint ventures — without consideration of the monetary threshold.” In part because there is no monetary threshold for dissolution proceedings, practitioners in the several New York counties that have a Commercial Division usually litigate business dissolution disputes in the Commercial Division.

But once in a blue moon a dissolution case will wind up in the Surrogate’s Court. Continue Reading Surrogate’s Court Declines to Order Demise of Fashion Business

A dissolution petitioner received the judicial equivalent of the old quip “Where’s the beef?” in a Brooklyn appeals court decision last week reversing an order dissolving a limited liability company under Section 702 of the Limited Liability Company Law. In Matter of FR Holdings, FLP v Homapour, 2017 NY Slip Op 07439 (2d Dept Oct. 25, 2017), the Appellate Division, Second Department, sent the case back to the drawing board, despite the LLC having been in receivership for more than two years, because the petitioner “offered no competent evidentiary proof” in support of his petition for dissolution.

A Common Fact Pattern

FR Holdings involved a common fact pattern. 3 Covert LLC (“Covert”) was formed to own and operate a mixed-use apartment and commercial building in Brooklyn.  Under the operating agreement, the purpose of the member-managed LLC was “to purchase and sell residential and commercial real estate and to engage in all transactions reasonably necessary or incidental to the foregoing.” Section 6.01 (a) of the operating agreement permitted most actions by “the vote or consents of holders of a majority of the Membership Interests.” As alleged in the petition, the LLC had five members, four of whom each held 12.5% interests. The fifth member, FR Holdings, owned a 50% interest. Continue Reading “Where’s the Beef?” Says Appeals Court, Reversing LLC Dissolution

New York’s LLC judicial dissolution statute, Section 702 of the Limited Liability Company Law, provides far more limited grounds to dissolve a business than the Business Corporation Law – a harsh reality for allegedly mistreated minority members highlighted by a recent decision by Manhattan Supreme Court Justice David B. Cohen.

In Matter of Felzen v PEI Mussel Kitchen, LLC, 2017 NY Slip Op 31831(U) [Sup Ct, NY County Sept. 1, 2017], Felzen sued to dissolve the company that operates a pair of Manhattan seafood restaurants named Flex Mussels, based upon allegations of breach of fiduciary duty, looting and oppression – frequent grounds for dissolution under Section 1104-a of the Business Corporation Law.  In Matter of Zafar, an earlier decision written about on this blog, comparable allegations – i.e., “persistent self-dealing and dishonest conduct” – sufficed to dissolve an LLC.  Let’s see how things turned out here. Continue Reading LLC’s Purpose Being Achieved? Business Doing Fine? Good Luck Getting Judicial Dissolution

As many judges and lawyers know, Superstorm Sandy has been used in litigation over the years as an excuse for things ranging from the seriously bad, like destroyed evidence, to the more mundane, like blown court deadlines. In Cardino v Peek-A-Boo, Inc., 2017 NY Slip Op 31657(U) [Sup Ct, Suffolk County July 28, 2017], a litigant did his best to try to persuade Suffolk County Supreme Court Justice James Hudson that Sandy made it “impossible” for him to comply with a post-dissolution order to turn over all merchandise of an adult bookstore, appropriately named “Peek-A-Boo, Inc.,” to a court-appointed receiver. Cardino provides some guidance on a rarely litigated issue – the potential consequences of violating a post-dissolution receivership order.

The Dissolution Decision

As recounted in an earlier decision, Peek-A-Boo was a New York corporation formed by a father and son, the Lombardos, to own and operate an adult shop. The petitioner, Cardino, sued the Lombardos to dissolve Peek-A-Boo under Section 1104-a of the Business Corporation Law, claiming he was “shut out” of the business. Suffolk County Supreme Court Justice Jeffrey Arlen Spinner held that the Lombardos oppressed Cardino and dissolved the corporation. Continue Reading Superstorm Sandy Unable to Wash Away Sin of Contempt

Board members’ decisions to award compensation packages for themselves can present some thorny issues. In a close corporation, shareholders typically serve as officers and directors, and have a reasonable expectation of compensation in lieu of dividends or distributions. But dissenting shareholders or directors, armed with the benefit of hindsight, can, and often do, criticize a board’s compensation decisions as excessive, claiming self-dealing, looting, and waste. What statutory protections do board members have when making compensation decisions? To what extent can board members truly rely on those protections?

In Cement Masons Local 780 Pension Fund v Schleifer, 56 Misc 3d 1204 [A], 2017 NY Slip Op 50875 [U] [Sup Ct NY County June 29, 2017], Manhattan Commercial Division Justice Saliann Scarpulla considered these issues in a thoughtful opinion, in which she relied on some relatively infrequently litigated provisions of the Business Corporation Law (“BCL”). The decision is also noteworthy for its reliance on decisional law from Delaware on not one, but two important issues of law, one of which was an apparent question of first impression in New York. Although Cement Masons Local involved a public company, it addressed the same statutes that govern close corporations, and provides helpful guidance to board members, and counsel, when weighing compensation decisions. Continue Reading Navigating Rocky Shoals and Safe Harbors When Board Members Fix Their Own Compensation

A business’s failure to pay state taxes can be a problem if the entity later wants to bring a lawsuit, or its non-controlling owners want to sue on the entity’s behalf.

Under Section 203-a of the New York Tax Law, a New York business entity’s failure to pay franchise taxes for two years can result in automatic dissolution of the entity by proclamation of the New York State Secretary of State. Once a corporation is dissolved by proclamation for failure to pay franchise tax, it “does not enjoy the right to bring suit in the court of this state, except in [very] limited respects specifically permitted by statute.” Moran Enterprises, Inc. v Hurst, 66 AD3d 972 [2d Dept 2009].

What happens when an out-of-state entity, or shareholders on the entity’s behalf, attempt to sue in a New York court, despite the business not having paid taxes for several years in its home state? New York County Commercial Division Justice Anil C. Singh recently considering that question, specifically with respect to a Delaware entity, in Juma Technology Corp. v Servidio, Decision and Order, Index No. 151483/2016 [Sup Ct, NY County May 24, 2017]. Continue Reading Minority Shareholders’ Derivative Suit Foiled by Voiding of Corporation’s Charter for Nonpayment of Taxes

abstentionCivil litigation in federal court can be a luxury experience. The quality of the judiciary is superb. Federal judges often give their cases substantial individualized attention. Lawsuits progress relatively quickly. The procedural rules in federal court have been litigated nationwide, so lawyers can easily find case law on almost every procedural nuance. Yet, business divorce cases are almost never litigated in federal court. Why?

The Friedman Decision

In 1994, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit all but sealed the courthouse door to business dissolution cases in federal court, at least in the territorial jurisdiction of the Second Circuit, which includes New York. Continue Reading Federal Court No Mecca for Business Divorce Litigants

StandingThe rules of “standing” in business divorce litigation generally require that the plaintiff have an ownership interest in the business entity at the time of the alleged wrongful conduct and, for derivative claims brought on the entity’s behalf, throughout the litigation.

In Lewis v Alcobi, 2017 NY Slip Op 30664(U) [Sup Ct NY County Apr. 6, 2017], Manhattan Commercial Division Justice Anil C. Singh considered whether a parent’s assignment of her young daughter’s membership interest in a limited liability company as security for the other parent’s unpaid debt deprived the daughter of standing to sue, despite the daughter’s claim to have received no consideration for the assignment.

The case provides useful lessons for litigating disputes of this sort and, perhaps more importantly, for transactional attorneys considering the use of LLC membership interests to secure payment obligations. Continue Reading Assignment of LLC Interest Defeats Standing Despite Alleged Lack of Consideration

No U TurnArticle 11 of the Business Corporation Law governs dissolution of closely held New York business corporations. Article 11 has existed, more or less in its current form, for decades. Some of its provisions have been heavily litigated, including Sections 1104 and 1104-a governing judicial dissolution for deadlock and oppression, and Section 1118 governing buyout of a minority’s interest in an oppression proceeding. Other provisions have received surprisingly little attention.

In Morizio v Roeder, 2017 NY Slip Op 50248(U) [Sup Ct Albany County Feb. 17, 2017], Albany County Commercial Division Justice Richard M. Platkin addressed one of these latter, relatively-overlooked sections.

Section 1116 of the Business Corporation Law governs the circumstances in which a party who sues for dissolution may later change his or her mind and withdraw the claim for dissolution. The key language of the statute provides that a petitioner who wishes to withdraw his or her claim must “establish” to the court “that the cause for dissolution did not exist or no longer exists.”

What does that mean? Only a few courts have considered the issue, including a decision last year by Justice Timothy Driscoll in the Cardino case. As it turns out, a leading case to consider the legal standard to withdraw a dissolution claim was an earlier decision in the Morizio litigation. Continue Reading Withdraw a Dissolution Claim? Not So Fast