In this week’s New York Business Divorce, a would-be dissolution petitioner just could not catch a break in a series of procedural losses emanating out of Bronx County Supreme Court.
Continue Reading How Not to Start a Corporate Dissolution Proceeding
Dissolution Procedure
Can an Arbitrator Order Extra-Judicial Dissolution?
In this week’s New York Business Divorce, we consider the important but rarely litigated question of whether an arbitrator has the power to extra-judicially dissolve a New York business entity.
Continue Reading Can an Arbitrator Order Extra-Judicial Dissolution?
Third Time’s Not a Charm in LLC Dissolution Case
The hard-fought business divorce between brothers Nissim and Avraham Kassab makes its fifth appearance in five years with this week’s post highlighting a recent decision by Justice Timothy Dufficy dismissing for the third time Nissim’s effort to dissolve an LLC that owns vacant realty in downtown Jamaica, Queens.
Continue Reading Third Time’s Not a Charm in LLC Dissolution Case
A Pig in a Poke: The Rollercoaster Kadosh Settlement Litigation
In this week’s New York Business Divorce, a wild tale of a settlement achieved, settlement spurned, and a litigant threatened with incarceration for contempt in an intensely bitter, nine-year battle between two brothers over their Manhattan-based real property LLC.
Continue Reading A Pig in a Poke: The Rollercoaster Kadosh Settlement Litigation
A Fresh Take on an Old Doctrine – The “Adequate, Alternative Remedy” to Dissolution
When shareholders enter into a written agreement governing the terms for a buyout of their stock, to what extent must courts hold a hearing to determine if the agreement provides an “adequate” alternative to dissolution? In this week’s New York Business Divorce, a Manhattan appeals court considers this important question in the context of an epic, 12-year litigation over the value of shares of stock in a Bronx funeral home.
Continue Reading A Fresh Take on an Old Doctrine – The “Adequate, Alternative Remedy” to Dissolution
Shareholder Oppression Requires More Than Denial of Access to Company Information
It’s brother against brother in the case featured in this week’s New York Business Divorce, in which the court dismissed a petition to dissolve a real estate holding company based on alleged withholding of company information. …
Continue Reading Shareholder Oppression Requires More Than Denial of Access to Company Information
The LLC Equitable Buyout: Past, Present, Future
In less than a decade the LLC “equitable buyout” doctrine went from non-existent to settled law in New York. How did it happen? What happens next? Read on in this week’s New York Business Divorce.
Continue Reading The LLC Equitable Buyout: Past, Present, Future
Surrogate’s Court Declines to Order Demise of Fashion Business
In a rare dissolution decision from the New York Surrogate’s Court – a court for the affairs of the deceased – the court declines to kill off a clothing business based upon a claim of oppression brought by the estate of the former minority shareholder. Read about it in this week’s New York Business Divorce.
Continue Reading Surrogate’s Court Declines to Order Demise of Fashion Business
“Where’s the Beef?” Says Appeals Court, Reversing LLC Dissolution
After more than two years in receivership, an appeals court gives a dissolved LLC a new lease on life because the petitioners “offered no competent evidentiary proof” why the entity should have been dissolved. We take a closer look in this week’s New York Business Divorce.
Continue Reading “Where’s the Beef?” Says Appeals Court, Reversing LLC Dissolution
And the Award For Most Oppressive Conduct By a Majority Shareholder Goes to . . .
Minority shareholder oppression on steroids is one way to describe what happened in Matter of Twin Bay Village, Inc., in which an upstate appellate panel recently affirmed an order dissolving the corporation and setting aside a stock issuance that diluted the minority shareholders. Learn more in this week’s New York Business Divorce.
Continue Reading And the Award For Most Oppressive Conduct By a Majority Shareholder Goes to . . .