Someday, if and when the facts come out in discovery, we’ll learn what really happened in the curious case of Matter of Hu (Lowbet Realty Corp.), 2012 NY Slip Op 22314 (Sup Ct Kings County Nov. 2, 2012), in which a slippery minority shareholder somehow managed to sell the corporation’s sole realty asset and abscond with $1.6 million sale proceeds in violation of court order in a pending liquidation proceeding brought by the majority shareholder. In the meantime, the buyer and the property manager now find themselves ensnared in the majority shareholder’s effort to rescind the sale and to recover damages.

The court’s decision in Lowbet, issued earlier this month by Brooklyn Commercial Division Justice Carolyn E. Demarest, tells a remarkable story of brazen disobedience of court order by one Margaret Liu, a 25% shareholder of Lowbet Realty Corp. The decision also sheds light on an interesting, rarely seen procedural question in corporate dissolution proceedings, namely, whether the court may adjudicate within such summary proceedings a shareholder’s claim for relief against a third party who is neither a shareholder nor officer/director of the corporation, rather than being forced to commence a separate, plenary action by ordinary summons and complaint.

Background

The petitioner, Shau Chung Hu, was the 100% owner of Lowbet when, in 1980, it purchased a 19-unit apartment building in Brooklyn. In 1985, Hu married Margaret Liu and gave her a 25% stock interest in Lowbet. Mr. Hu and Ms. Liu separated in 1995, at which time Mr. Hu went to China where he has resided ever since, leaving Ms. Liu in full control over Lowbet.
Continue Reading Dissolution Case Ensnares Buyer of Corporation’s Realty in Unauthorized Sale

This week’s New York Business Divorce features an interesting decision by Commercial Division Justice Emily Pines in Nastasi v. Carlino, where she sent both sides home empty handed in a bitter shareholder dispute with misconduct on both sides.

Continue Reading Court Sends Everyone Home Empty Handed in Bitter Business Breakup

A Queens County judge recently lowered the boom on controlling shareholders of a fire and burglar alarm company, all of whose assets they sold without telling, or distributing any sale proceeds to, a minority shareholder. Get the full story in this week’s New York Business Divorce.

Continue Reading Court Grants Common-Law Dissolution and Awards Damages for 5% Shareholder Excluded From Sale of Company Assets

What are the powers of the president of a close corporation to make major decisions in the ordinary course of business, such as entering leases, without obtaining board approval? Does it matter if the president knows he or she cannot obtain board approval for the proposed action? Read this week’s New York Business Divorce to see how these questions were answered by Rochester Commercial Division Justice Kenneth Fisher in a fascinating case pitting brother against brother in Hellman v. Hellman.

Continue Reading Court in Hellman Case Re-Affirms Close Corporation President’s Authority to Sign Lease Without Board Approval

In this second installment of a two-part series, New York Business Divorce examines recent First Department decisions clarifying the standards for overcoming general releases given in the context of transactions with fiduciaries in closely held business entities, where the plaintiffs allege that the fiduciary fraudulently induced them to enter into the transaction. This week’s focus is on a case whose name should be familiar to regular readers of this blog, Arfa v. Zamir, 2010 NY Slip Op 06070 (1st Dept July 13, 2010).

Continue Reading Recent Appellate Rulings Clarify Standards for Challenging Releases Given to Fiduciaries of Closely Held Business Entities: Part 2

This week and next, New York Business Divorce examines two recent First Department decisions clarifying the standards for overcoming general releases given in the context of transactions with fiduciaries in closely held business entities, where the plaintiffs allege that the fiduciary fraudulently induced them to enter into the transaction. This week’s focus is on Centro Empresarial Cempresa S.A. v. America Movil S.A.B. de C.V., 2010 NY Slip Op 04719 (1st Dept June 3, 2010).

Continue Reading Recent Appellate Rulings Clarify Standards for Challenging Releases Given to Fiduciaries of Closely Held Business Entities: Part 1

The right of first refusal, commonly used to restrict stock transfers in closely held corporations, continues to live up to its reputation as one of the most reliable generators of employment for litigation attorneys in Giaimo v. EGA Associates Inc., in which the Appellate Division, First Department, recently reversed a lower court’s ruling denying summary judgment in a battle for corporate control between brother and sister. It’s in this week’s New York Business Divorce.

Continue Reading Court Invalidates Control-Shifting Stock Transfer Made in Violation of Corporation’s Right of First Refusal

Corporate bylaw provisions governing the number of directors and procedures for their appointment can sometimes play a critical role in the outcome of disputes among shareholders of closely held corporations, as illustrated in a recent case highlighted in this week’s New York Business Divorce involving a small residential co-op.

Continue Reading Pay Attention to the Latent Power of Corporate Bylaws

This week’s New York Business Divorce highlights an important decision by the Appellate Division, First Department, construing rights of advancement and indemnification for litigation expenses in a battle royal between majority and minority members of a limited liability company.

Continue Reading New York Court Follows Delaware Law to Construe Advancement and Indemnification Provisions of Florida LLC’s Operating Agreement

A recent decision by Commercial Division Justice Charles E. Ramos in the case of Arfa v. Zamir grabs the spotlight in this week’s New York Business Divorce. The subject is an important one to business owners and their counsel: Does a general release in an out-of-court agreement between business partners/fiduciaries provide any protection against allegations of fraudulent nondisclosure?

Continue Reading Fiduciaries, the Duty to Disclose and the Incredible Shrinking Release