Shareholder Squeeze Out

What are the Best Defenses Under Illinois Law for a Partner Accused of Breaching Fiduciary Duties to the Partnership or Other Partners?

May 11, 2024 | Peter S. Lubin and Patrick Austermuehle

Under Illinois law, defenses for a partner accused of breaching fiduciary duties to the partnership and his other partners can be varied and nuanced (LID Associates v. Dolan, 324 Ill.App.3d 1047 (2001)), (Pielet v. Hiffman, 407 Ill.App.3d 788 (2011)). Here are some potential defenses:

1. Compliance with Partnership Agreement: A partner who has acted in accordance with an express authorization in the partnership agreement may not be deemed in breach of fiduciary duties (1515 North Wells, L.P. v. 1513 North Wells, L.L.C., 392 Ill.App.3d 863 (2009). However, no language in a partnership agreement, however clear and explicit, can reduce a partner’s fiduciary duty toward other partners (Pielet v. Hiffman, 407 Ill.App.3d 788 (2011)).

2. Good Faith and Fairness: A partner can defend on the grounds that he has acted in good faith and fairness in his dealings with other partners (Winston & Strawn v. Nosal, 279 Ill.App.3d 231 (1996)). Under Illinois law, a fiduciary relationship exists between partners and each is bound to exercise the utmost good faith in all dealings and transactions related to the partnership business (Pielet v. Hiffman, 407 Ill.App.3d 788 (2011)), 1515 North Wells, L.P. v. 1513 North Wells, L.L.C., 392 Ill.App.3d 863 (2009)).

3. Lack of Personal Advantage: If a partner can show that he has not advantaged himself at the expense of the firm, this could be a defense against an accusation of fiduciary duty breach.

4. Right to Manage Partnership Affairs: If a partner was managing the affairs of the partnership and did not conceal, misrepresent or seek to take advantage of his partner, he might be able to argue that he was not in breach of fiduciary duties (Mermelstein v. Menora, 372 Ill.App.3d 407 (2007)).

5. Discrepancies in Accounting or Interpretation of Rights and Duties: Discrepancies or errors in accounting, or misinterpretations of rights and duties under partnership agreements, can be invoked as a defense, especially if the partner did not seek personal advantage.

6. Duty of Good Faith: If it can be shown that the partner always exercised good faith in his dealings with other partners, he can defend against the accusations (Pielet v. Hiffman, 407 Ill.App.3d 788 (2011)), (Winston & Strawn v. Nosal, 279 Ill.App.3d 231 (1996)).

Remember that each case is unique and the success of these defenses can depend on the specifics of the partnership agreement and the facts of the case. These defenses are not exhaustive and other defenses may be available depending on the specifics of a case. Continue reading ›

What Illinois Law Protects Minority Shareholders or LLC Members from Breaches of Fiduciary Duty in Closely Held Companies?

May 10, 2024 | Peter S. Lubin and Patrick Austermuehle

In Illinois, the protections for minority shareholders or LLC members from breaches of fiduciary duty in closely held companies can be found in a combination of statutory provisions and case law.

Firstly, the Illinois Limited Liability Company Act (805 ILCS 180/15-3) specifies that a member of a manager-managed LLC does not owe a fiduciary duty to the LLC unless they are a manager under the terms of the operating agreement (Katris v. Carroll, 362 Ill.App.3d 1140 (2005)), (Tully v. McLean, 409 Ill.App.3d 659 (2011)). This means that members of an LLC who are not managers do not owe a fiduciary duty to the company or to other members (Katris v. Carroll, 362 Ill.App.3d 1140 (2005), (800 South Wells Commercial LLC v. Cadden, 2018 IL App (1st) 162882 (2018). However, members in a member-managed LLC do owe each other fiduciary duties of loyalty and care (Anest v. Audino, 332 Ill.App.3d 468 (2002), (Schultz v. Sinav Limited, — N.E.3d —- (2024).

Secondly, under the Illinois Business Corporations Act (805 ILCS 5/12.50), a minority shareholder may sue a corporation directly for its dissolution if they can establish that the majority shareholders have acted in a way that is illegal, oppressive, or fraudulent. This provides a means for minority shareholders to recover their investment from the corporation when no other methods are available (Kalabogias v. Georgou, 254 Ill.App.3d 740 (1993).

Moreover, under common law, a controlling shareholder in a cash-out merger owes the minority shareholders the default fiduciary duties of loyalty and due care, and courts apply an exacting standard of judicial review known as “entire fairness” (Schultz v. Sinav Limited, — N.E.3d —- (2024). Additionally, LLCs can contractually impose fiduciary duties on their managers. Furthermore, the Illinois courts have held that minority shareholders in closely held corporations may sue company directors for breaches of fiduciary duty (Elleby v. Forest Alarm Service, Inc., 2020 IL App (1st) 191597 (2020)). Continue reading ›

What constitutes LLC member or shareholder oppression in Illinois?

May 2, 2024 | Peter S. Lubin and Patrick Austermuehle

In Illinois, the concept of LLC member or shareholder oppression is generally conceived as actions that are “illegal, oppressive, or fraudulent”. For shareholders of a corpo”ration that has no shares listed on a national securities exchange or regularly traded in a market maintained by one or more members of a national or affiliated securities association, the Illinois Business Corporation Act (IBCA) states that the Circuit Court may intervene if it is established that the directors or those in control of the corporation have acted, are acting, or will act in a manner that is illegal, oppressive, or fraudulent with respect to the petitioning shareholder.

In the context of LLC members, the Illinois Limited Liability Company Act (805 ILCS 180/35-1) provides for the dissolution of the company upon the application by a member or transferee of a distributional interest, upon entry of a judicial decree that the managers or those members in control of the company have acted or are acting in a manner that is oppressive and was, is, or will be directly harmful to the applican].

However, it’s important to note that in a manager-managed LLC, a member who is not also a manager does not violate a duty or obligation under the Act or under the operating agreement merely because the member’s conduct furthers the member’s own interest.

The specific conduct that courts have found to be oppressive varies. Some cases have found that conduct is oppressive if it is “arbitrary, overbearing and heavy-handed”. Other cases have found that even where corporate formalities are observed, the payment of a high amount of compensation to corporate officers, while refusing to pay dividends to benefit minority shareholders, can be considered oppressive conduct, depending on the corporation’s overall financial picture. Continue reading ›

Understanding the Freeze Out or Squeeze Outs of Minority Owners in Illinois Closely Held Companies

March 12, 2024 | Peter S. Lubin and Patrick Austermuehle

In the business world of closely held companies in Illinois, minority shareholders often find themselves vulnerable to what is known as a “freeze out” or “squeeze out.” This blog post delves into this phenomenon, exploring what it means, how it happens, and the legal backdrop in Illinois that governs such situations.

What is a Freeze Out/Squeeze Out?

A freeze out or squeeze out occurs when majority shareholders in a closely held company engage in practices aimed at marginalizing, reducing, or eliminating the minority shareholders’ stake in the company. This can be done in various ways, such as refusing to declare dividends, terminating employment, or other tactics that essentially force minority shareholders to sell their shares at a reduced value.

Common Tactics Used

Withholding Dividends: Majority shareholders may decide not to declare dividends, thereby cutting off a key financial benefit of holding shares.
Employment Termination: Minority shareholders who are employed by the company might be terminated or demoted.
Denying Access to Information: Minority shareholders might be denied access to important company information, impacting their ability to make informed decisions.
Dilution of Shares: The company might issue more shares, diluting the minority’s ownership percentage.

Legal Framework in Illinois

In Illinois, the rights of minority shareholders in closely held corporations are protected under various statutes and case law. The Illinois Business Corporation Act provides certain protections and remedies for minority shareholders, including the right to a fair valuation of their shares.

Fiduciary Duties: Majority shareholders have fiduciary duties to the minority. Breach of these duties can form the basis for legal action.
Oppression Remedies: The law provides remedies for “oppressive” actions by majority shareholders. This can include actions that are burdensome, harsh, or wrongful.

In Illinois, there are several significant cases that provide guidance on the treatment of minority shareholder or LLC member freeze-outs or squeeze-outs.

In “Vanco v. Mancini”, the court acknowledged the vulnerability of minority shareholders to freeze-outs or squeeze-outs where the majority, for personal rather than legitimate business reasons, deprives the minority shareholder of their office, employment, and salary. The court highlighted the availability of judicial remedies, including the dissolution of the corporation, in such instances.

The case of “Rexford Rand Corp. v. Ancel” further expanded on this issue. The court suggested the necessity of a fiduciary duty on shareholders in a close corporation as a protective measure against oppressive conduct by the majority. It also indicated that a minority shareholder who has been frozen out should rely on an oppressed shareholder lawsuit against the corporation seeking damages or dissolution. Interestingly, the court discussed whether a freeze-out terminates a shareholder’s fiduciary duty to a close corporation and concluded that a minority shareholder who has been frozen out no longer exercises influence over corporate affairs that gives rise to a fiduciary duty.

“Small v. Sussman” held that the injuries alleged by a minority shareholder were injuries to the corporation, thus only a shareholder derivative action was available. It also found that a freeze-out merger that, through a reverse stock split, eliminated a minority shareholder’s fractional share, did not support a constructive fraud claim. The court ruled that a minority shareholder cannot recover on a conversion claim against the majority shareholder and corporation in connection with a freeze-out merger that eliminated his fractional share.

Further to this, “Jaffe Commercial Finance Co. v. Harris” held that a majority, by merely voting its strength to effectively oust minority from participation in the business of a corporation, did not act oppressively within the meaning of the statute authorizing liquidation. Similarly, in “Jahn v. Kinderman”, it was held that frozen-out minority shareholders in closely held corporations may seek dissolution of the entity, and majority shareholders may avoid this result via a buyout of the minority at a “fair value” to be determined by the circuit court if the parties are unable to reach an agreement.

Lastly, “Bone v. Coyle Mechanical Supply, Inc.” found that majority shareholders’ conduct in failing to hold annual meetings, failing to observe corporate formalities in increasing bonuses and compensation, and effectively “freezing-out” minority shareholders could be considered as outrageous, due to evil motive or reckless indifference to the rights of others.

Please note that these cases provide a general outline of the law in Illinois on minority shareholder or LLC member freeze-outs or squeeze-outs, and the specific holdings may vary depending on the facts of each case.

In Illinois a Minority Member can Bring a Derivative Lawsuit as a LLC Member on Behalf of the LLC

February 23, 2024 | Peter S. Lubin and Patrick Austermuehle

In Illinois, the situation regarding LLC minority members bringing a derivative lawsuit for member oppression is quite specific. The Illinois Limited Liability Company Act allows LLC members to file a derivative action to protect the interests of the LLC. This is particularly relevant when the LLC itself has a cause of action, but the managers or members have failed to pursue it. Such a derivative action enables members to enforce the rights of the LLC and recover damages on its behalf.

However, it’s important to understand that a derivative action is distinct from a member oppression claim. While derivative actions are filed on behalf of the LLC for wrongs against the LLC, certain types of member oppression claims are brought by individual members against the controlling members for actions that unfairly prejudice the minority members’ rights or interests and case-specific injury to the minority member but not the LLC as a whole.

For a derivative action to be initiated, certain conditions must be met. The member initiating the action should not be a manager of the LLC, and they must have made a written demand on the managers or members of the LLC to take action to enforce the right. If the managers or members fail to take action within 90 days, the member can then file a lawsuit on behalf of the LLC. It is crucial to note that derivative actions are complex and can be costly, so seeking advice from an experienced business attorney is recommended.

For member oppression, minority LLC members in Illinois have legal options to protect their interests and seek remedies, such as judicial dissolution, breach of fiduciary duty claims, specific performance or injunctive relief, and buyout or monetary damages. Again, legal counsel is crucial in navigating these options and understanding the rights and legal remedies available under the Illinois Limited Liability Company Act.

How Should a Minority Shareholder or LLC Member Handle a Squeeze-Out or Freeze-Out of Their Interests

February 23, 2024 | Peter S. Lubin and Patrick Austermuehle

When a shareholder or LLC (Limited Liability Company) member faces a “freeze-out” or “squeeze-out,” they are typically being pushed out of the company’s decision-making process or their economic interests are being diminished. This can be a challenging and complex situation, requiring a careful and strategic approach. Here are some general steps that might be considered:

Understand Your Legal Rights and Documents: Review the company’s governing documents, such as the bylaws, shareholder agreement, or operating agreement. These documents often outline the rights and obligations of shareholders or members and may contain provisions relevant to your situation.
Gather Evidence: Document any actions that contribute to the freeze-out or squeeze-out. This could include meeting minutes, emails, financial statements, or any other relevant communications.
Seek Legal Advice: Consult with an attorney who specializes in corporate law, particularly someone experienced in shareholder/member rights in LLCs or corporations. They can provide advice specific to your situation, including the interpretation of any legal documents and the identification of any breaches of fiduciary duties or violations of state laws.
Explore Negotiation and Mediation: Before taking any legal action, consider whether the situation can be resolved through negotiation or mediation. These alternative dispute resolution methods can often be less costly and time-consuming than litigation.
Consider Your Goals: Identify what you want to achieve. Do you want to regain your position in the company, receive compensation for your lost interests, or simply exit the company in a fair manner? Your goals will guide your strategy moving forward.
Possible Litigation: If negotiations fail and your legal rights are being significantly infringed upon, litigation may be necessary. Your attorney can advise on the likelihood of success and the costs involved.
Financial Implications: Consider the financial impact of your chosen course of action, including legal fees, potential loss of income, and any tax implications.
Communication with Other Shareholders/Members: If other shareholders or members are also being affected, it might be beneficial to communicate with them. There could be strength in numbers, either in negotiations or in legal action.
Understand the Impact on Relationships: Consider the long-term business relationships and how they will be affected by your actions. Sometimes the best legal strategy might not align with your long-term business or personal relationships.
Plan for the Future: Regardless of the outcome, think about your future with or without the company. This might involve considering other business opportunities or roles.

Every situation is unique, and the best course of action will depend on the specific circumstances, the governing laws of the state where the LLC or corporation is registered, and the details of the company’s governing documents. It’s crucial to balance legal considerations with practical business and personal considerations.

Excessive Fees Can Be the Basis of a Derivative Lawsuit

February 21, 2024 | Peter S. Lubin and Patrick Austermuehle

Excessive management fees charged by a majority owner can potentially be the basis for a derivative lawsuit in certain circumstances. In corporate law, a derivative lawsuit is a legal action brought by shareholders on behalf of a corporation against third parties, often including insiders such as officers, directors, or controlling shareholders. The key issues in such a lawsuit typically involve allegations of breach of fiduciary duty, abuse of control, fraud, or mismanagement.

When a majority owner charges excessive management fees, it may be construed as a breach of fiduciary duty or misuse of their position to the detriment of the corporation and its minority shareholders. In such cases, the following elements are often considered:

Breach of Fiduciary Duty: Majority owners owe a fiduciary duty to the corporation and its shareholders. Charging excessive fees could be seen as a breach of this duty, especially if it harms the corporation’s financial health or is not in the best interest of all shareholders.
Fairness and Reasonableness: The fees must be fair and reasonable. If the fees are exorbitant compared to industry standards or the services rendered, it could be a ground for legal action.
Impact on Minority Shareholders: If the excessive fees adversely affect the minority shareholders or the value of their shares, it can be a strong basis for a derivative suit.
Corporate Governance and Approval Processes: The procedures followed in approving the fees are also important. If the majority owner bypassed normal governance processes or used their influence to approve the fees without proper oversight, it could strengthen the case for a lawsuit.
Jurisdiction and Specific Laws: Laws regarding fiduciary duties and shareholders’ rights vary by jurisdiction. The specific legal standards and precedents in the jurisdiction where the corporation is incorporated will play a critical role.

Delaware Courts Provide New Insight Into Duty of Oversight for Corporate Directors — This Will Open up New Issues in Derivative Litigation

December 24, 2023 | Peter S. Lubin and Patrick Austermuehle

The duty of oversight, often referred to within the context of corporate governance, is a critical aspect of the responsibilities of a corporation’s board of directors. This duty is essentially the requirement that board members are attentive to and oversee the business and affairs of the corporation, including its compliance with the law and its risk management processes. The duty of oversight is a component of the fiduciary duties that directors owe to the corporation and its shareholders.

The case In re McDonald’s Corp. S’holder Deriv. Litig., 2023 WL 387292, C.A. No. 2021-0324-JTL, at *1, *9 (Del. Ch. Jan. 26, 2023) is centered around allegations that the McDonald’s directors overlooked signs of a corporate culture permitting sexual harassment and misconduct from 2015 to 2020. The plaintiffs, who are shareholders, contend that this resulted in harm to the company due to subsequent employee lawsuits, loss of employee trust, and a damaged reputation. Nine directors who served during this period were named as defendants.

David Fairhurst, who served as Executive Vice President and Global Chief People Officer of McDonald’s from 2015 until his termination in 2019, was among the defendants. The plaintiffs argued that Fairhurst, as a fiduciary, was aware of potential issues with sexual harassment and misconduct in the company. They claimed that under his leadership, a culture of sexual misconduct and harassment was allowed to develop, leading to coordinated Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) complaints, a 30-city walkout, and a second round of coordinated EEOC complaints, followed by a second one-day strike in 10 cities.

To fully grasp how this case has impacted Delaware Law concerning the duty of oversight, it is essential to understand the concept of a Caremark claim. This type of “failure of oversight” theory is observed to be one of the most challenging theories in corporation law upon which a plaintiff might hope to win a judgment. Under Delaware law, plaintiffs must plead with particularity that there were so-called ‘red flags’ that put the directors on notice of problems with their systems, but which were consciously disregarded. Continue reading ›

Exploring LLC Derivative Suits in Illinois: Understanding Rights, Procedures, and Legal Recourse

December 18, 2023 | Peter S. Lubin and Patrick Austermuehle

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:

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.
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.
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.
Representation of LLC’s Interests: The member bringing the derivative suit must adequately represent the interests of the LLC and not have conflicting interests.

Navigating Shareholder and LLC Member Freeze-Outs: Recent Illinois Court Decisions

September 20, 2023 | Peter S. Lubin and Patrick Austermuehle

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