Arbitration and Mediation

Subscribe to Arbitration and Mediation

Notwithstanding we’ve had no more than a dusting of snow thus far in my downstate New York neck of the woods, welcome to another edition of Winter Case Notes in which I visit my backlog of recent court decisions of interest to business divorce aficionados by way of brief synopses with links to the decisions for those who wish to dig deeper.

This year’s synopses feature cases involving minority shareholder oppression claims in a father-daughter dispute previously reported on this blog; an appellate decision affirming the dismissal of a books and records action involving Delaware LLCs; one case granting and another denying claims for advancement and indemnification of legal expenses; the dismissal of claims alleging wrongful transfer of the plaintiff’s LLC membership interest; and a decision compelling arbitration of a claim for wrongful removal of the plaintiff as a manager and member of an LLC.

Oppression of the “Gifted” Minority Shareholder

By “gifted” I’m referring not to the natural talents or intellect of a minority shareholder, but to her ownership of shares by way of a gift from a family member. Under the governing reasonable-expectations standard, can such a shareholder, who made no investment and has no involvement in the company’s business affairs, successfully petition for dissolution based on a claim of oppression by a majority shareholder based on the latter’s denial of her shareholder status? Continue Reading Winter Case Notes: Oppression of the “Gifted” Minority Shareholder and Other Recent Decisions of Interest

Shareholders A and B are the sole shareholders of a real estate holding corporation. Their shareholders’ agreement includes provisions that:

  • guarantee each of them a seat on the two-member board of directors and appoint each as co-president;
  • prohibit their removal from the board with or without cause;
  • in the event of death, disability, or resignation, authorize the vacant board seat to be filled by the departing shareholder’s child;
  • require majority (i.e., effectively unanimous) board consent for all board actions;
  • require 55% (i.e., effectively unanimous) shareholder consent for all actions needing shareholder approval.

Under these provisions, neither A nor B can take any action at the board or shareholder level without the other’s consent. Sounds like a perfect set-up for a deadlock dissolution petition in the event A and B reach impasse on some critical issue jeopardizing the corporation’s viability, doesn’t it?

What if I now add that Shareholders A and B own 49% and 51%, respectively, of the corporation’s common shares? Can Shareholder A still bring a deadlock dissolution petition?

Not according to a recent decision by Manhattan Commercial Division Justice Saliann Scarpulla in Balkind v Nickel, 2018 NY Slip Op 31703(U) [Sup Ct NY County July 16, 2018], in which she dismissed a deadlock dissolution petition filed under Section 1104 of the Business Corporation Law brought by a 49% shareholder, despite his co-equal board and shareholder control. Continue Reading 49% Shareholder Can’t Seek Deadlock Dissolution Despite Shareholders’ Agreement Granting Co-Equal Control

Mediation, as commonly understood in the context of alternative dispute resolution, employs a neutral third party to facilitate negotiation and voluntary agreement between the parties. Unlike arbitration, the mediator does not conduct an evidentiary hearing, is able to “caucus” separately with each side, and does not impose a solution or issue a legally binding award.

Or so I thought, until I came across last week’s appellate ruling in Korangy v Malone, 2018 NY Slip Op 03767 [1st Dept May 24, 2018], in which the court affirmed an order dismissing claims by one 50% LLC member against the other 50% member based on the outcome of a prior, “binding mediation” conducted pursuant to a provision in the LLC’s operating agreement addressing member deadlock.

When I did a little online research, I found commentary about binding mediation — in which mediators usually impose a legally enforceable resolution only after they fail to produce a voluntary settlement — both negative (“a trap for the unwary”) and positive (“more cost effective than arbitration”). I also got the sense that the inclusion of mandatory, binding mediation clauses in commercial contracts, insofar as it has achieved any significant level of acceptance, mostly is confined to standardized transactions such as construction and reinsurance contracts.

Whatever their utility in those contexts, does it make sense to include an ex ante provision for binding mediation as a deadlock-breaking device in a shareholders or operating agreement, such as the one in Korangy v Malone? I doubt it, but let’s first take a look at the case. Continue Reading Anyone Think Binding Mediation to Break Deadlock Is a Good Idea?

Lawyers are famous for arguing seemingly inconsistent positions at the same time. We practitioners lovingly refer to the technique as “arguing in the alternative.” The famous Texas trial lawyer, Richard “Racehorse” Haynes, gave a vivid example:

Say you sue me because you say my dog bit you. Well, this is my defense: My dog doesn’t bite. And second, in the alternative, my dog was tied up that night. And third, I don’t believe you really got bit. And fourth, I don’t have a dog.

A litigator’s stock in trade, arguing multiple positions at once can be vital to advance the client’s interests and to preserve arguments for later appellate review. Sometimes, though, one comes across arguments so seemingly in tension that they don’t quite seem able to coexist. A recent appellate decision, Alam v Uddin, 2018 NY Slip Op 02763 [2d Dept Apr. 25, 2018], involved a rather odd array of apparently conflicting arguments on both sides. Continue Reading Corporate Frankenstein “Partnership to Form a Corporation” Lives Another Day

Having read thousands of court opinions during my 30+ years as a litigator, I’ve learned to assume that there are things going on beyond what can be gleaned from the court’s written decision, and that these hidden factors may explain positions and outcomes that otherwise seem untenable.

I’m nonetheless having difficulty giving the benefit of the doubt to most of what happened in Verkhoglyad v Benimovich, 2017 NY Slip Op 51133(U) [Sup Ct Kings County Sept. 12, 2017], a case recently decided by the Brooklyn Supreme Court in which it denied enforcement of a mandatory forum selection clause, disregarded the operating agreement’s New Jersey choice-of-law provision by applying New York law to various claims, refused to enforce the agreement’s pre-suit mediation clause, and let proceed a claim for judicial dissolution of a New Jersey limited liability company despite governing appellate law stripping New York courts of jurisdiction over the dissolution of foreign business entities.

Verkhoglyad involves a short-lived, ill-fated enterprise between two individuals who were boyhood friends. In 2014, the plaintiff Verkhoglyad became a 50% co-managing member of defendant Benimovich’s existing HVAC business organized as a New Jersey LLC. They entered into a written operating agreement designating the LLC’s principal office in New Jersey and dictating application of New Jersey law to the operating agreement and its interpretation. It also includes the following provision captioned “Settlement of Disputes and Jurisdiction”: Continue Reading Read This Case. Slap Your Head. Not Too Hard.

During her many years as Presiding Justice of the Brooklyn Commercial Division, New York Supreme Court Justice Carolyn E. Demarest (Ret.) decided numerous important and challenging business divorce cases. I should know, having featured on this blog in the last 10 years no less than 19 of her decisions.

Among them, and likely the one with the most lasting impact, is the Mizrahi case in which Justice Demarest issued two major post-trial decisions granting dissolution of an LLC based on financial infeasibility and ordering a closed auction between the two 50/50 members, before the Appellate Division on appeal by the petitioner made new law by ordering an “equitable buy-out” of the respondent member.

Another of my favorites is the Cortes case, also a post-trial decision, in which Justice Demarest granted common-law dissolution of a restaurant business conditioned on a buy-out of the minority shareholder reflecting his share of millions in cash “skimmed” by the controlling shareholders from a restaurant business as established by sophisticated forensic analysis.

I was among many lawyers saddened by Justice Demarest’s decision last year to hang up her robes. She truly was one of the best trial court judges around, not to mention losing one of my most prolific sources of blog fodder.

The good news is, soon after leaving the bench Justice Demarest joined the Manhattan office of JAMS where she serves as an arbitrator and mediator in complex commercial cases. With 34 years on the bench, a deep understanding of the substantive law governing relations among co-owners of closely held business entities, and equally extensive experience with business valuation, it’s hard to imagine a more qualified neutral in business divorce matters.

I recently had the pleasure of interviewing Justice Demarest for my Business Divorce Roundtable podcast. You can hear the interview by clicking on the link at the bottom of this post.

The interview features Justice Demarest’s thoughts on the many challenges presented by business divorce cases. Naturally I had to ask her about the Mizrahi case and a few others she decided. We also talk about the mediation of business divorce cases.

So give it a listen and if you like it, I’d be grateful if you post a good review on iTunes which will help spread the word.

USA

It’s true that the statutory and common-law rules at play in business divorce cases can vary widely from state to state. But it’s also true that court decisions in one state can influence courts in other states, and can provide business divorce lawyers with fresh ideas and novel arguments. I like to think of it as legal cross-pollination.

For many years, one of the nation’s leading authorities on business organization law, Professor Elizabeth Miller at Baylor Law School, has been collecting, curating, and publishing detailed synopses of cases from around the country involving LLCs and other unincorporated business entities, with a large complement of dissolution, breach of fiduciary duty, and other cases featuring disputes among business co-owners. It’s a terrific resource for keeping up with nationwide case law developments. Some of Professor Miller’s summaries can be found online, but the best way for lawyers to gain access to them on a regular basis is to join the LLCs, Partnerships and Unincorporated Entities Committee of the ABA’s Business Law Section. That’s the same committee that sponsors the incomparable LLC Institute every year.

Professor Miller’s most recent sampling of (non-Delaware) partnership and LLC cases was presented at a session of the 2017 Spring Meeting of the Business Law Section in New Orleans. I’ve selected from it and further distilled in the following summaries a quintet of business divorce cases from a quintet of states other than New York. Continue Reading Business Divorce Nation: Five States, Five Cases

RosenbloomAMediation continues to grow in popularity as a means of resolving legal disputes in lockstep with the rising costs and delays attendant to litigation and arbitration. Mediation allows the parties to air their grievances face-to-face in a confidential setting and, with the help of a skilled mediator and a willingness to compromise on both sides, to arrive faster and more economically at a resolution of their own design rather than having one imposed on them by a judge or arbitrator.

An argument can be made that business divorce disputes are less amenable to mediation, not only because of the high emotions and sense of betrayal experienced by the co-owners, but also due to the loosely framed legal standards in the governing statutory and common law that give courts broad discretion in the exercise of their equitable powers. In other words, the bitterness and intrinsic uncertainty of business divorce litigation outcomes can foster a zero-sum approach on both sides that favors combat over conciliation.

On the other hand, if the relationship between feuding co-owners is terminally ill but the business nonetheless remains viable, chances are one side eventually is going to buy out the other, which is where, in my opinion, mediation can be most effective in bringing about a resolution by focusing on valuation of the equity interest of the selling business owner.

Which brings me to the topic at hand, my podcast interview of Arthur Rosenbloom (pictured above) for the Business Divorce Roundtable, a link to which appears at the bottom of this post.

Art is a veteran lawyer, mediator, and arbitrator who last year was appointed by the court to mediate a case in which I represented the majority owner in litigation that followed a cash-out merger of the minority owner who was contesting the value placed on his interest. What distinguished Art from other mediators was his in-depth knowledge of business valuation, much of it gained from his many years working as an investment banker. In the course of the mediation, Art employed his valuation expertise to critique each side’s valuation reports, and by doing so was instrumental in getting the parties to bridge the gap between their respective valuation positions.

In my interview with Art, he shares his insights on a number of issues vital to the mediation of business valuation disputes, including the different pathways to mediation, the optimal timing for mediation, the utilization of appraisal reports in mediation, the retention of a neutral appraiser to assist the mediation, the mediator’s role in critiquing the parties’ valuation positions, and how the mediator deals with the  intense emotions the parties often bring with them to the mediation.

After you listen to the podcast, I recommend you also read Art’s article, Mediating Valuation Disputes in Minority Oppression Litigation, published last year in the New York Law Journal.

 

got purposeUnder the LLC Law’s provision authorizing judicial dissolution and its interpretive case law, determining an LLC’s purpose can be essential to adjudicating whether it no longer is reasonably practicable to carry on its business in conformity with the operating agreement — in other words, whether its purpose has failed.

Failed purpose cases generally fall into one of two categories: those with written operating agreements containing express purpose clauses, and those without. In the latter category, where the LLC either has no written operating agreement or has one lacking a purpose clause, the member seeking dissolution may succeed through testimony and circumstantial evidence showing the failure of the LLC’s intended purpose. The Natanel case, which I litigated and wrote about here, was such a case resulting in judicial dissolution of a single asset, realty-owning LLC purchased to house the co-owners’ separate moving and storage business which eventually went out of business leaving the building largely vacant.

In the former category, the petitioner may face a more daunting if not impossible path to dissolution when an otherwise financially viable LLC’s written agreement contains a typical, broad purpose clause permitting any lawful business activity, such that the termination of the LLC’s initial business, e.g., owning a certain property or holding a certain investment portfolio, may transmute into something entirely different without running afoul of the dissolution statute. Continue Reading LLC Agreement’s All-Purpose Purpose Clause Defeats Dissolution Petition

They say this summer has been unusually cool in the Northeast, but it’s been a hot one for business divorce litigation, judging from the number of recent court decisions involving various and sundry disputes among co-owners of closely held businesses. So, once again, it’s time for my annual summertime post featuring a few, short summaries of recent decisions of interest in business divorce cases.

First, we’ll look at a decision by Justice Melvin Schweitzer in a battle between 50/50 ownership factions over control of an international translation services company with over 3,000 employees. Next up is Justice Carolyn Demarest’s ruling denying a change of venue in a corporate dissolution case. Last is a decision by Justice Marcy Friedman in which she addressed an interesting statute of limitations defense in a drawn-out dissolution case.

Shareholder of Parent Corporation Has Standing to Sue Derivatively to Remove Subsidiary’s Director But Not for Dissolution

Elting v Shawe, 2014 NY Slip Op 32126(U) [Sup Ct, NY County July 24, 2014]. It’s not everyday you encounter business divorce litigation on the scale of this case, involving a firm with over 3,000 employees and revenues over $350 million. The subject company is a closely held Delaware holding corporation owned 50/50 by two individuals who also comprise its two-director board, and its wholly owned New York subsidiary providing international translation services. One owner-director sued the other for alleged financial and management abuses, asserting direct and derivative claims seeking the defendant’s removal as an officer and director of the subsidiary under BCL §§ 706 (d) and 716 (c), and also seeking deadlock dissolution of the subsidiary under BCL § 1104 (a). Continue Reading Summer Shorts: Director Removal and Other Recent Decisions of Interest