Dissolution Procedure

Subscribe to Dissolution Procedure via RSS
dissolution

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

84cd1683-9e87-45c1-bb76-4cd2f46185e2 (1)

The shareholder oppression claim under BCL 1104-a has a unique relationship with claims for money damages.

A minority shareholder petitioning for dissolution under BCL 1104-a must establish that the majority shareholders have engaged in “illegal, fraudulent or oppressive actions,” or that the “property or assets of the corporation are being looted, wasted, or diverted for non-corporate purposes by its directors, officers or those in control of the corporation.”

Based on that standard, it’s easy to imagine conduct by the majority that both meets the criteria for dissolution and constitutes a separate tort compensable with money damages (for instance, a claim for the majority’s breach of fiduciary duty).  For that reason, it’s very common to see a dissolution petition coupled with money damages claims, all arising out of the same conduct. 

But where the money damages claims are filed before the dissolution petition, a plaintiff might be forced to litigate those to completion prior to pursuing their dissolution petition.  That’s the tough lesson learned by the petitioner of a dissolution proceeding brought under BCL 1104-a, in Ramirez v Issa, 2024 N.Y. Slip Op. 33488[U] [NY County 2024], the subject of this week’s post.Continue Reading Corporate Dissolution Petition Hits Back Burner in Favor of Earlier Filed Claims for Money Damages

In this week’s New York Business Divorce, read about a multi-year litigation odyssey culminating in the statute-of-limitations dismissal of a claim for misappropriation of an alleged corporate opportunity to own land based upon the date of execution of the contract of sale rather than the closing of the real estate purchase.
Continue Reading A Litigation Odyssey

In this week’s New York Business Divorce, read about a rare decision considering whether to grant an untimely BCL 1118 buyout election and the unsavory consequence of the respondent’s delay: imposition of a million dollar bond.
Continue Reading The Worst of Both Worlds: Untimely Buyout Election Yields Full Merits Hearing and Huge Bond

Shutterstock_2110241948

Can two contested dissolution petitions—one by each 50% shareholder based on the other’s alleged misconduct—yield a shortcut to uncontested dissolution? See what the Second Department has to say in this week’s post.
Continue Reading Dueling Dissolution Petitions Beget Dissolution Without Consideration of Alternate Remedies