What is Corporate Deadlock?
The New Jersey Business Corporations Act and current New Jersey Limited Liability Company Act have slight differences in the way they define and address “corporate deadlock.”
The New Jersey Business Corporations Act and current New Jersey Limited Liability Company Act have slight differences in the way they define and address “corporate deadlock.”
The Minority Oppression statute sets forth four remedies which a Court “may” order to remedy oppressive conduct. The Minority Oppression Statute provides that a Court may appoint a custodian, appoint a provisional director, order the sale of the corporation’s stock (per the statute) or enter a judgment dissolving the corporation. Id. The Statutory power of a Court to Order a stock sale is described in further detail in N.J.S.A. 14A:12-7(8). On its face, it appears that N.J.S.A. 14A:12-7(8) does not authorize a mandatory purchase by someone otherwise unwilling to buy the stock. Nevertheless, a Court may use it’s equitable powers to Order that shareholder to buy another shareholder’s stock if oppression is found. Bonavita v. Corbo, 300 N.J. Super. 179, 197-198 (Ch. Div. 1996). That is because in Brenner v. Berkowitz, 139 N.J. 488, 512-514 (1993), the New Jersey Supreme Court held that when a statutory violation such as oppression occurs, Courts retain their equitable discretion to fashion remedies. Hence, if a Court finds that the majority oppressed the minority it could order the majority to purchase the minority shares for “fair value,” even if the majority does not want to buy that interest.
Scott Unger is a Shareholder in Stark & Stark's Lawrenceville, New Jersey office concentrating in Shareholder & Partner Dispute Litigation. For questions, or additional information, please contact Mr. Unger.
A Shareholder Agreement, sometimes referred to as a Buy-Sell Agreement, can be a helpful tool in the structuring and governance of a closely held corporation. Unlike publicly traded and large corporations, closely held corporations have only a few shareholders, which in some cases are friends or members of the same family. Although in an ideal world shareholders of a closely held business get along, especially when friends and family, it is important for the Shareholders to execute a Shareholder Agreement. The Shareholder Agreement can protect the individual interests of the shareholders, which may not always be aligned, and prevent an unnecessary dissolution of the Corporation over a shareholder dispute.
A Shareholder Agreement typically provides for, among other things, restrictions on the transfer of stock in the corporation. This is especially important in a closely-held business because the owners of the business want to make sure that any new owner buying into the business is approved by the existing owners. The Shareholder Agreement can also provide for a right of first refusal, which will give the existing owners the option to purchase an owner’s stock in the event of a sale. In addition, if the corporation becomes marketable to another entity or person, but the purchaser wants all or none of the stock of the corporation, what is known as a “drag-along” provision will require minority owners to sell their stock along with the majority owners. Similarly, a “tag-along” provision will protect the minority owners from the sale of the majority of the stock, requiring the minority stock to be sold along with the majority as a package.
In addition to restricting transfers of stock, the Shareholder Agreement can provide for certain shareholders to be designated as directors to manage the corporation and methods for resolution of shareholder disputes, such as arbitration or buyout provisions. Without these provisions, a dispute between the owners of the corporation could require expensive litigation and even result in the dissolution of the corporation.
Perhaps most importantly, the Shareholder Agreement can implement non-competition, non-solicitation and confidentiality provisions to prevent a disloyal owner from competing with the corporation, pilfering intellectual property and poaching customers, employees or suppliers. These provisions, when carefully drafted, can protect the profitability of the corporation, even after the disloyal shareholder sells his interests in the corporation.
The above provisions are just a few examples of the issues that can be addressed in a Shareholder Agreement. It is important for all closely-held corporations to have a Shareholder Agreement drafted to address the particular needs of the shareholders and the corporation. If your corporation needs a Shareholder Agreement, speak with an attorney to discuss drafting a Shareholder Agreement that can protect not only the interests of the shareholders, but also the future success of the corporation.
Dolores Kelley is a Member of Stark & Stark's Business & Corporate Group in the firm's Lawrenceville, New Jersey Office. For questions, or additional information, please contact Ms. Kelley.
The New Jersey Revised Uniform Limited Liability Company Act gives Courts discretion to remedy oppressive conduct. If a court determines that a member or controlling member has, is or will act illegally, fraudulently, harmfully or oppressively towards a member, a Court may: (1) appoint a custodian or provisional manager; (2) order the sale of a member’s LLC interest to the LLC or the members (N.J.S.A. 42:2C-48(b)); (3) dissolve the company; and (4) award legal fees and other expenses if a party acted vexatiously or otherwise not in good faith (N.J.S.A. 42:2C-48(c)).
The New Jersey Supreme Court in Brenner v. Berkowitz, 134 N.J. 488, 512 (1993) held that in addressing corporate minority oppression, Courts were not limited to the statutory remedies contained in the statute. That means at least within the context of a shareholder dispute within a corporate entity, Courts may utilize its common law powers to fashion an equitable remedy. At this point, it is unclear whether or not the same equitable powers will be given to Courts when confronted with remedying an oppressive conduct within an LLC. Based upon my review of the Brenner decision, I believe Chancery Courts will have the same equitable powers to remedy oppression whether the entity is a corporation or an LLC. That is because the Supreme Court in Brenner held “when a statutory violation occurs, a court retains its discretion to fashion equitable remedies.” Brenner v. Berkowitz, 134 N.J. at 514.
Scott Unger is a Shareholder in Stark & Stark's Lawrenceville, New Jersey office concentrating in Shareholder & Partner Dispute Litigation. For questions, or additional information, please contact Mr. Unger.
New Jersey first promulgated Limited Liability Company (“LLC”) laws in 1993. The New Jersey Company Act, N.J.S.A. 42:2B-1, et. seq., provided that LLCs were of a limited duration. In other words, they automatically ended after a defined period of time that was set forth by the operating agreement or by the statute (if there was no operating agreement). The Revised Uniform Limited Liability Company Act changes the duration of an LLC. All LLCs formed after March 18, 2013 will have a perpetual duration. As I’ve stated in previous blog posts, if the LLC was formed before March 18, 2013, the Members may opt in to be covered by the new law. If they do not opt in, then the LLC will have perpetual duration after March 1, 2014.
As I have repeatedly stated in previous blog posts, the Limited Liability Company’s (“LLC”) Operating Agreement is the first place to look for the “deal” amongst the members. LLCs are generally governed by contract. The contract that controls under most circumstances is the Operating Agreement. The New Jersey Revised Uniform Limited Liability Company Act (“Act”) defines the term “Operating Agreement” very broadly. The Act defines “Operating Agreement,” to mean operating agreement even if the members do not use the term “Operating Agreement” in the written document. Moreover, the Act does not require that there be a formal written Operating Agreement at all. The Act allows the use of explicit, oral and/or implied (or a combination of them all) to define the rights of the parties.
Hence, under the Act, if the members of an LLC admit another member, treat her as a member but don’t amend the written Operating Agreement to treat the new person as formal member the law will find that she is a member. That is because the course of conduct – treating her as a member will result in her being added as a member. This, of course, allows Courts to entertain extrinsic evidence such as course of dealing and course of performance to determine the rights, obligations and duties of the members. It will give equitable courts greater discretion in formulating fair and equitable results when adjudicating disputes amongst members of an LLC.
In previous blog articles, I wrote that it was unclear whether or not the minority oppression statute, N.J.S.A 14A:12-7(c), applied to oppressed members of a limited liability company (“LLC”). Some argued it did not apply because the legislature did not incorporate similar protections afforded to the oppressed in the current governing limited liability statute. Others argued that a Court of equity could apply the minority oppression statute to an LLC pursuant to its equitable powers. Moreover, the current LLC statute contained a “catch-all” that permitted Courts to apply general corporate law when equitable.
Prior to the enactment of the Revised Uniform Limited Liability Company Act, it appeared that Courts were more inclined not to apply the protections afforded to minority shareholders to members of an LLC. One District Court quoted the article I wrote which was published in the New Jersey Law Journal as authority in finding that it did not apply.
The New Jersey Revised Uniform Limited Liability Company Act now answers that debate once and for all. For all LLCs formed after March 18, 2013, the protections offered to oppressed members of a corporation are now immediately available to oppressed members of an LLC. After March 1, 2014, all oppressed members of an LLC are afforded those protections.
In the next few years, I will be carefully, reading and analyzing the decisions. I am curious whether or not Courts will apply the well-established body of law applying the minority oppression statute to an LLC, as I believe they should and will apply.