Articles Posted in Shareholder Freeze Out

|

Limited Liability Companies (LLCs) are a popular business structure known for providing liability protection to its members. However, conflicts and wrongdoing within an LLC can occur, leading to disputes among members. When an LLC suffers harm due to actions taken by its management or majority members, a derivative suit can be an effective legal recourse for members seeking to address these issues in Illinois.

Understanding LLC Derivative Suits: An LLC derivative suit is a legal action brought by one or more members on behalf of the LLC against a third party, typically the management or majority members, alleging wrongdoing or harm done to the company. In essence, it allows individual members to sue on behalf of the LLC when the company itself fails to take action against internal misconduct.

In Illinois, the procedures and rules governing derivative suits for LLCs are outlined under the Illinois Limited Liability Company Act (805 ILCS 180) and relevant case law.

Requirements for LLC Derivative Suits in Illinois: For a member to file a derivative suit on behalf of an LLC in Illinois, several key requirements must be met:

  1. Ownership Status: The member initiating the derivative suit must be a current member at the time of filing the lawsuit and must have been a member at the time the alleged wrongdoing occurred.
  2. Exhaustion of Remedies: Generally, the member bringing the suit must show that they made a demand on the LLC’s management to take action against the alleged wrongdoing but that the demand was either rejected or ignored, or waiting for a response would be futile.
  3. Injury to the LLC: The alleged misconduct must have caused harm or damage to the LLC, affecting its financial interests or causing other significant negative effects.
  4. Representation of LLC’s Interests: The member bringing the derivative suit must adequately represent the interests of the LLC and not have conflicting interests.

Continue reading ›

|
Shareholder derivative lawsuits can be particularly impactful for closely held companies in Illinois. These lawsuits provide an avenue for shareholders to address wrongdoing by officers, directors, or majority shareholders, and to protect the company’s best interests. In this blog post, we’ll explore the best way to prosecute a shareholder derivative lawsuit for a closely held Illinois company, considering the unique dynamics of such entities.
  1. Understand the Closely Held Company Dynamics:Closely held companies typically have a limited number of shareholders, and often, those shareholders are actively involved in the company’s management. Understanding the close-knit nature of these businesses is essential when prosecuting a derivative lawsuit. Recognize that personal relationships and conflicts of interest may play a significant role.
  2. Engage Experienced Local Counsel:Given the specific nuances of Illinois corporate law and the potential complexities of closely held companies, it is crucial to engage experienced local counsel. Seek attorneys with a track record in closely held corporate litigation, who understand the intricacies of Illinois business statutes and court procedures.
  3. Preserve Evidence and Documents:As with any derivative lawsuit, preserving evidence and relevant documents is paramount. Ensure that you have access to all necessary corporate records and financial documents that may support your claims.
  4. Evaluate Your Standing:Verify that you have standing to bring a derivative lawsuit as a shareholder of the closely held company. This may involve confirming that you were a shareholder at the time of the alleged wrongdoing and that you have maintained your shares throughout the legal process.
  5. Thoroughly Investigate the Allegations:Conduct a thorough investigation into the allegations of wrongdoing within the company. It’s essential to gather evidence and build a strong case that demonstrates how the misconduct has harmed the company and its shareholders.
  6. Attempt Resolution Through Negotiation or Mediation:Given the close relationships in closely held companies, it may be worthwhile to explore options for resolution through negotiation or mediation before proceeding with litigation. Engaging in discussions with the parties involved may lead to an amicable solution that benefits all stakeholders.
  7. Draft a Well-Pleaded Complaint:Create a well-pleaded complaint that clearly outlines the allegations, the harm suffered by the company, and the legal basis for your claims. A well-drafted complaint is crucial to moving the case forward.
  8. Consider the Impact on Company Operations:Recognize that a shareholder derivative lawsuit can disrupt business operations and relationships within a closely held company. Weigh the potential benefits of the lawsuit against its impact on the company’s ability to function effectively.
  9. Stay Committed and Persistent:Legal proceedings for closely held companies may be emotionally charged and protracted. Stay committed to the process, work closely with your legal counsel, and be prepared for potential challenges.
  10. Protect the Interests of Minority Shareholders:If you are a minority shareholder, emphasize the importance of protecting the interests of minority shareholders during the litigation process. Ensure that any potential settlements or resolutions are equitable to all shareholders.

Prosecuting a shareholder derivative lawsuit for a closely held Illinois company requires a thorough understanding of the unique dynamics and challenges that these businesses present. By following the steps outlined above and working closely with experienced local counsel, you can navigate the complexities of closely held corporate litigation and strive to protect the best interests of the company and its shareholders.

Continue reading ›

|

Limited Liability Companies (LLCs) have become a popular choice for business owners due to their flexibility and liability protection. However, in the realm of LLCs, disputes among members can arise, leading to conflicts and, in some cases, member oppression. In the state of Illinois, LLC member oppression is a serious issue that demands attention and understanding to navigate legal complexities and seek appropriate remedies.

Understanding LLC Member Oppression: LLC member oppression refers to situations where the majority members of an LLC engage in conduct that unfairly prejudices the rights or interests of minority members. These oppressive actions can take various forms, such as excluding minority members from decision-making, withholding crucial information, mismanagement of company affairs, or diverting opportunities that could benefit the LLC.

In Illinois, LLCs are governed by the Illinois Limited Liability Company Act (805 ILCS 180). This act provides a legal framework outlining the rights and responsibilities of LLC members and offers avenues for minority members who face oppression within the company.

Rights of LLC Members in Illinois: Under Illinois law, LLC members possess certain rights, including the right to access company records, participate in management decisions (unless otherwise specified in the operating agreement), and the right to fair treatment without discrimination or oppression. However, these rights can sometimes be compromised when majority members wield their power to the detriment of minority stakeholders. Continue reading ›

|

Shareholder and LLC member disputes can be complex and contentious, especially when one party attempts a “freeze-out.” A freeze-out refers to excluding a shareholder or member from the decision-making process or the benefits of ownership. In Illinois, recent court decisions have shed light on the legal principles surrounding these disputes. In this blog post, we will explore some of these notable cases and the lessons they offer for those facing or involved in freeze-out situations.v

Continue reading ›

|

It’s commonly said that you have to spend money to make money, but taken too far, that philosophy can easily bankrupt a company. When that company has investors and shareholders whose money you’re spending so you can try to make money, you have to justify your expenses to those shareholders. You have a responsibility to spend their money wisely so they can expect a good return on their investment.

According to a series of lawsuits filed against Madison Square Garden Entertainment Corp., the company allegedly made a series of moves the shareholders considered to be in violation of the company’s fiduciary duty.

One such move was the decision made by MSG Network’s board of directors and controlling stockholders to merge with MSG Entertainment. The reason given for the move was to save costs, but the minority shareholders allege the move was not made with their best interests in mind. Continue reading ›

|

In a recent 11th Circuit Court of Appeals decision, Warrington v. Rocky Patel Premium Cigars, Inc., No. 22-12575, 2023 WL 1818920 (11th Cir. Feb. 8, 2023), the court provided valuable lessons for partners, shareholders, and small business owners who may find themselves in disputes. This case serves as a cautionary tale, highlighting the importance of careful strategy and legal counsel when pursuing litigation or arbitration.

The dispute centered on Brad Warrington, a minority shareholder in Rocky Patel Premium Cigars, who wanted to divest from his holdings in the company. The buy-sell agreement between Warrington and Rakesh Patel, the majority shareholder, included an arbitration provision for any disputes arising out of the agreement. However, the case demonstrates how mistakes made during litigation can result in a waiver of the right to arbitration.

After years of disagreement over the value of Warrington’s shares and alleged improprieties by Patel, Warrington found a private buyer and notified Patel of his intention to sell. Patel refused to acknowledge the notice and subsequently sued Warrington in Florida state court, seeking a declaratory judgment and alleging breach of contract, among other claims.

While the state action was pending, Warrington sued Patel in federal court, bringing several counts, including breach of contract and breach of fiduciary duty. Patel moved to dismiss, remand, or stay the federal action, but the district court denied his motion. It wasn’t until June 2022 that Patel moved to stay and compel arbitration under the agreement. However, the district court denied this motion, finding that Patel had waived his right to arbitrate by initially filing in state court and moving to dismiss or remand Warrington’s federal action. Continue reading ›

|

When starting a business, co-owners envision the best—working together productively and profitably. But it is all too common for business partners to encounter a serious impasse over how to operate the business. When partners are unable to work through a dispute, it may be time for one partner to exit the company via a buyout of their interest. It is not uncommon for this scenario to arise in conjunction with claims that the majority shareholder or shareholders are oppressing the minority shareholder or shareholders.

For Illinois corporations, the Illinois Business Corporation Act of 1983 (BCA) permits shareholders to pursue legal action against each other based on allegations of fraud, illegal activity, corporate waste or other disruptive conduct. The BCA provides for 12 categories of relief that a court may order as an alternative to dissolving the business. Minority shareholders frequently opt to pursue the remedy of a buyout, in which the exiting shareholder’s interest is purchased by the remaining shareholders for “fair value.” Similarly for Illinois LLCs, the Illinois Limited Liability Company Act provides that a court may order the entity or the remaining members to purchase the interest of the outgoing member.

The BCA defines “fair value” as the value of the shares “taking into account any impact on the value of the shares resulting from the actions giving rise to a petition under this Section.” The statute goes on the explain that “‘fair value,’ with respect to a petitioning shareholder’s shares, means the proportionate interest of the shareholder in the corporation, without any discount for minority status or, absent extraordinary circumstances, lack of marketability.” For many companies, this provides a much more favorable valuation to a minority shareholder than selling shares for fair market value or any other metric of value normally employed when selling an interest in a small business. This is particularly true for closed (or closely held) corporations where a market for the minority’s shares might not otherwise exist since the statutory valuation does not generally speaking allow for a discount for the lack of marketability of the minority’s shares. Continue reading ›

|

Earlier this year, the governor of Delaware signed Senate bill 273 which amended various provisions of the Delaware General Corporation Law (GCL). The changes became effective August 1, 2022. Most notable among the changes was the amendment of Section 102(b)(7) of the GCL to allow corporations to exclude or limit certain officers from personal liability for breaches of their fiduciary duty of care. In order for corporations to take advantage of this change in the law, companies must include a provision in their certificate of incorporation eliminating or limiting its officers from personal liability for breaches of the duty of care.

Under Delaware corporate law, directors and officers of Delaware corporations owe the corporation and its shareholders certain fiduciary duties. One of the two chief fiduciary duties that directors and officers owe to the corporation and shareholders is called the duty of care. The duty of care requires directors and officers to exercise care and act in an informed manner when acting for the corporation and making decisions on its behalf.

Since 1986, with the addition of Section 102(b)(7) to the GCL, corporations have been authorized to eliminate or limit the personal liability of directors for monetary damages for  breaches of the duty of care. However, until passage of the amended Section 102(b)(7) this year, corporations could not do the same for its officers, even though the Delaware Supreme Court repeatedly affirmed that officers owe the same fiduciary duties as directors. Now corporations can insulate its officers as well as directors from personal liability for breaches of the duty of care.

It is important to understand the limits of this newly amended Section 102(b)(7). First, it doesn’t apply to all officers but only to those officers “deemed to have consented to service by the delivery of process to the registered agent of the corporation pursuant to § 3114(b) of Title 10” which includes the president, chief executive officer, chief operating officer, chief financial officer, chief legal officer, controller, treasurer, or chief accounting officer along with anyone identified in the corporation’s SEC filing as one of the most highly compensated executive officers, or anyone who has, by agreement with the corporation, consented to be identified as an officer for the purposes of Section 3114(b) of the GCL. Continue reading ›

|

While most securities fraud lawsuits accuse the defendant of manipulating their stock prices to keep them artificially high, the current lawsuit against Goldman Sachs alleges the company lied to maintain its high stock prices, rather than lying to cause the prices to rise. It’s a unique allegation, and one the U.S. Supreme Court has not yet recognized, but two lower courts have already upheld it as a valid claim.

Goldman appealed the decision made by the district court and the Second U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to the Supreme Court. The company alleges that, if the Supreme Court were to allow the securities lawsuit against it to proceed, the result would be devastating for public companies all over the country.

Goldman is arguing that the allegations against it are too weak to be valid. The allegations made by the shareholders rely on Goldman’s advertising claims that included words like “honesty” and “integrity” and claimed the company always prioritized the interests of its clients, when the opposite turned out to be true.

According to Goldman, the statements cited by the lawsuit are too vague to make the basis of a securities-fraud case. The company has also denied the statements had any effect on its stock price. If the lawsuit is allowed to proceed through the courts, the bank alleges it will allow shareholders to file securities-fraud lawsuits in the future simply by pointing to any kind of aspirational statement that nearly all companies make in their marketing materials. Continue reading ›

|

After discussions about going public, Promega Corp., a privately-held biotech company based in Wisconsin, decided instead to remain a privately held company back in 2014 and tried to buy back the stock owned by its minority shareholders and regain a controlling interest in the company. Those minority shareholders claimed the price at which Promega wanted to buy back their shares was deeply discounted, and when they tried to negotiate for a higher price point, Promega allegedly refused, which ultimately led to the massive lawsuit between the company and its minority shareholders that dragged on for about five years.

The team of attorneys arguing the case for the minority shareholders was headed by James Southwick and Alex Kaplan, two partners of the Susman Godfrey law firm in Houston, Texas. They recently announced that the lawsuit settled for $300 million, a victory to which they attribute their months of research and preparation leading up to the trial, as well as their decision to stick to one main allegation: shareholder oppression.

Other attorneys might have argued that the defendants had breached their fiduciary duty to their shareholders, or they would have alternated between making the case for shareholder oppression, arguing breach of fiduciary duty, and making the case for other allegations throughout the course of the trial. Instead, Southwick and Kaplan decided their best bet was to argue that Promega had tried to oppress its shareholders and to continue to make that case throughout the month-long bench trial. It was an unusual strategy, but one that ultimately paid off. Continue reading ›

Contact Information
Chicago Office
19 S LaSalle St #702
Chicago, IL 60603
Phone: 630-333-0333
Mailing Address
17W220 22nd St #410
Oakbrook Terrace, IL 60181
Phone: 630-333-0333 Please direct all mail correspondence to our Oakbrook Terrace address.
Highland Park Office
189 Whistler Rd
Highland Park, IL 60035
Phone: 630-710-4990
We accept the following credit cards
Credit Cards Accepted
We accept payment via Venmo at: @L-A-LAW

Please direct all mail correspondence to our Oakbrook Terrace address.

Phone: 603-333-0333
Visit our site: chicagobusinesslawfirm.com

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

Please do not include any confidential or sensitive information in a contact form, text message, or voicemail. The contact form sends information by non-encrypted email, which is not secure. Submitting a contact form, sending a text message, making a phone call, or leaving a voicemail does not create an attorney-client relationship.

Copyright © 2024, Lubin Austermuehle, P.C.
JUSTIA Law Firm Blog Design