What is Corporate Deadlock?

no picture

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 contains two “deadlock” provisions.  N.J.S.A. 14A:12-7.   Subjection (1)(a) provides that the court may take remedial action upon proof that: “the shareholders of the corporation are so divided in voting power that, for a period which includes the time when the two consecutive annual meetings were or should have been held, they failed to elect successors to directors whose terms have or would have expired upon the election and qualification of their successors.”  N.J.S.A. 14A:12-7(1)(a).  Thus, deadlock may be shown if the members fail to elect the requisite number of directors per the bylaws for two consecutive annual meetings.
 
The second statutory deadlock provision in the New Jersey Business Corporations Act is more general.  It states that a Court may order appropriate relief if a corporation’s directors “are unable to effect action on one or more substantial matters respecting the management of the corporation’s affairs.”  N.J.S.A. 14A:12-7(1)(b).  That section applies when the corporation is unable to act because the directors cannot agree.    An example of deadlock would be if the two directors could not agree on whether or not the corporation should borrow money when the corporation was unable to meet its obligations.   
 
Once “deadlock” is established in the case of a corporation, the Judge is free to utilize various statutory and equitable remedies at their disposal.  For example, the Judge could appoint a provisional director or receiver to run the affairs of the corporation.  They could also order one side to buy the other out, dissolve the company or split the assets of the company.   The use of provisional directors and receivers is often an effective tool within the Court’s arsenal to insure that deadlock does not paralyze or destroy the corporation during the pendency of the litigation.  
 
The term, “deadlock” is not used in the current New Jersey Limited Liability Act.  Rather, the concept of “deadlock” is sort of addressed in N.J.S.A. 42:2B-49 (“Dissolution by Decree”).  That  section of the current version of the New Jersey Limited Liability Company Act allows a member or manager to seek dissolution of the LLC “whenever it is not reasonably practicable to carry on the business in conformity of the operating agreement.”  Moreover, the current version of the LLC Act does not explicitly permit the Court to appoint a receiver or provisional director to run the company when deadlock is present.  Notwithstanding the same, the New Jersey Supreme Court in Brenner v. Berkowitz found that the Chancery Courts are a court of equity and the Judge’s are not limited to the enumerated statutory remedies.  Hence, a Chancery Judge may through the use of their inherent equitable powers appoint a receiver or provisional director to run the LLC if they find that equity necessitates the same. 
 
Recently, I’ve written a lot about the New Jersey Revised Limited Liability Company Act.  That act which will go into partial effect on March 18, 2013 and  full effect on March 1, 2014, recognizes the minority oppression cause of action and for the first time statutorily allows the Chancery Court to appoint a provisional director or receiver to be appointed when the Court determines that it is warranted.  Although, Chancery Court’s always had these powers within their equitable powers, some Chancery Judges were more reluctant to be proactive and go outside the statutes to formulate a remedy.  The New Jersey Revised Limited Liability Company Act will give members and their counsel greater ability to convince Judges who may have been hesitant to go outside the statute when formulating a remedy.  That is, because for the first time these remedies are codified.
 
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.

 

Oppression is Found

no picture

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.

Shareholder Agreements Can Protect Shareholder Interests and the Success of Closely Held Corporations

no picture

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.

Courts May Use Equitable Powers to Order A Mandatory Purchase of Stock if Oppression is Found

no picture
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.

The New Jersey Revised Uniform Limited Liability Company Act Provides for Remedies to Redress Oppression

no picture

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.

The "Purpose" for Forming LLCs was Expanded by New Jersey's Revised Uniform Limited Liability Company Act

no picture
Currently, the New Jersey Limited Liability Company Act allows LLCs to “carry on any lawful business, purpose or activity.”  N.J.S.A. 42:2B-8.   Sadly, the current law does not allow an LLC to be used for “non-profit” use such as a charity or placing a family vacation home into an LLC.  A small, but important change promulgated by the enactment of the New Jersey Revised Uniform Act is the change in that language. The Revised Act allows LLCs to be used for “any lawful purpose, regardless of whether for profit.”  Hence, non-profits may use an LLC after March 18, 2013.  Moreover, families could form an LLC and place their vacation home into that corporate structure even though the use of that home was not for profit. 
 
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.

The Revised Uniform Limited Liability Company Act Changes the Duration of the Company

no picture

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.  

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.

The New Jersey Revised Uniform Limited Liabilty Company Act Broadly Defines the term "Operating Agreement"

no picture

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.

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.

The New Jersey Revised Uniform Limited Liability Act Codifies the Covenant of "Good Faith and Fair Dealing"

no picture
The New Jersey Revised Uniform Limited Liability  Company Act specifies that members and managers are subject to the contractual obligation of “good faith and fair dealing” when discharging their duties and exercising their rights.  That means that, even though not specifically stated in the operating agreement, it is implied or understood that each party to that contract must act in good faith and deal fairly with the other party in performing or enforcing the terms of the contract.  To act in good faith and deal fairly, a member or manager must act in a way that is honest and faithful to the agreed purposes of the operating agreement and consistent with the reasonable expectations of the parties.  A member or manager must not act in bad faith, dishonestly, or with improper motive to destroy or injure the right of the others to receive the benefits or reasonable expectations of the operating agreement.

Generally, to assert a breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, the complaining party must prove that the manager or member acted with no legitimate purpose with bad motives or intentions; engaged in deceptive;  or evasion in the performance of terms and conditions set forth in the operating agreement. Moreover, they must prove that by engaging in such conduct they denied the complaining party of  the bargain initially intended by the parties. 

Because a Limited Liability Company is essence a contractual entity it has been widely recognized by many courts that the covenant of good faith and fair dealing already applied. Nevertheless, the Revised Uniform Limited Liability Act codifies the case driven application of the law.  The codification gives even greater protections for members of an LLC.   Of course, because a Limited Liability Company is a contractually based entity, the members may limit the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, so long as the limitation is not “manifestly unreasonable.”  As I wrote in a previous blog post, because this law is in its infancy, it is unknown how Courts will define and apply the “manifestly unreasonable” standard.   Of course, I will be diligently reading and analyzing those decisions over the course of the next few years.
 
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 Revised Uniform Limited Liability Company Act Now Provides the Remedies and Protections Afforded Oppressed Minority Shareholders

no picture

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.
 

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.

Older Entries

February 26, 2013 — New Jersey Revised Uniform Limited Liabilty Act Addresses Manifestly Unreasonable Operating Agreements

February 25, 2013 — New Jersey Revised Uniform Limited Liability Company Act is Almost Upon Us

February 22, 2013 — Mark Your Calendars: The New Jersey Revised Uniform Limited Liability Company Act is About to Go Into Effect

January 15, 2013 — New Jersey Courts Focus on the Respective Shareholders' Power or Lack Thereof, When Determining Who an Oppressed Minority Shareholder Is

September 27, 2012 — Modernizing the New Jersey Limited Liability Company Act

August 22, 2012 — Minority Oppression: New Jersey Supreme Court Affirms Chancery Court's Order Allowing the Minority Shareholder to buy-out the Majority Shareholder's interests

August 17, 2012 — 50% Shareholder Can Assert Claims of Oppression and Breach of Fiduciary Duty Against Another 50% Shareholder

August 13, 2012 — Pre-Derivative Suit Demand Letter Is Not Required In Pennsylvania When Corporation In Question Is Closely Held

August 10, 2012 — Pennsylvanian Courts Are Permitted to Provide Equitable Relief to Oppressed Shareholders

August 9, 2012 — Stark & Stark Shareholder Discusses The Minority Oppression Statute

August 6, 2012 — Internal Affairs Doctrine of Corporation Not Applied in Another New Jersey Minority Oppression Case

August 3, 2012 — Court gives guidance on valuing a start-up company under minority oppression statute

July 30, 2012 — Termination of Shareholder's employment May Trigger Protections Under New Jersey's Minority Oppression Statute

July 26, 2012 — New Jersey Chancery Court Applies Corporation Case Law to the Break-up of Limited Liability Companies

July 23, 2012 — New Jersey Legislature is Debating the Enactment of a Bill Which, if Enacted Would Change the Current Law Governing Derivative Proceedings and Shareholder Class Actions

July 20, 2012 — Party Claiming That They Are an Oppressed Minority Shareholder Must Demonstrate A Nexus Between the Misconduct And The Shareholder or Their Interest in The Corporation

July 16, 2012 — Pennsylvania Courts May Appoint A Corporate Custodian When Oppression Shown

July 12, 2012 — Other Jurisdictions Are Not As Generous As New Jersey When Determining the Existence of Shareholder Oppression

July 9, 2012 — Pennsylvania Recognizes the Minority Oppression Claim

July 5, 2012 — A Court May Appoint A Receiver In A Minority Oppression Case

July 2, 2012 — NJ Minority Oppression Litigation May be Filed in the Chancery Division

June 25, 2012 — Minority Oppression Statute Only Applies to Closely Held Corporations

June 18, 2012 — New Jersey Does Not Always Require Pre-Suit Demand On Board of Directors Before Filing Derivative or Minority Oppression Claims

June 11, 2012 — Sometimes Shareholders Assert Derivative Claims In Conjunction with or Alternatively to Minority Oppression Claims

May 15, 2012 — New York Minority Oppression: Buyout the preferable remedy

May 8, 2012 — New York Minority Oppression: Reasonable Expectations of the Shareholder Test.

May 1, 2012 — The Interplay of Experts and Attorneys Is Important in Minority Oppression Litigation

April 24, 2012 — New York Law Protects Minority Shareholders From Oppression

April 17, 2012 — Selecting a Qualified Business Valuation Expert For A Minority Oppression Case

March 26, 2012 — Valuation Technique Used In Minority Oppression Litigation: Capitalization of Income.

March 6, 2012 — Methods Used By Experts in Determining "Fair Value" in Minority Oppression Litigation

February 21, 2012 — The Termination of a Shareholder/Employee Without Cause Could Constitute Minority Oppression

February 7, 2012 — The Applicability of Minority Oppression Claims to Limited Liability Companies

November 14, 2011 — Oppressed Shareholders May Find Redress in Statutes, Common Law and Equity

October 19, 2011 — Selecting an Attorney for Your Minority Oppression Case

October 17, 2011 — Minority Oppression In New Jersey May Be Found Where The Court Finds That the Majority Abused Their Authority or Acted Unfairly

October 10, 2011 — The Majority's Conduct Need Not Be Fraudulent, Illegal or Wrongful to Constitute Minority Oppression Under New Jersey Law

October 3, 2011 — Courts Have the Power to Order A Buy-out When Minority Oppression Is Found

September 6, 2011 — Minority Opression: Splitting Off the Profitable Parts of a Business and Transferring Them to an Entity Controlled by the Majority

August 23, 2011 — Self-Dealing Violating Shareholders Agreement

July 18, 2011 — New Jersey Case Law's Modernization Of The Internal Affairs Doctrine Protects Oppressed Minority Shareholders

July 7, 2011 — Minority Oppression - Appointment of A Custodial Receiver

May 25, 2011 — Conflicting Loyalties: When corporate counsel should not represent a shareholder

April 19, 2011 — Inspection Rights Under New Jersey Corporate Law.

February 24, 2011 — Minority Oppression: Transfer or Sale of Corporate Assets

February 1, 2011 — Amendments to Certificate Of Incorporation May Constitute Minority Oppression

December 22, 2010 — Minority Oppression: Course of Dealing to Establish the Reasonable Expectations of the Shareholders

December 15, 2010 — Minority Oppression: The Business Judgment Rule May Not Shield The Oppressor

December 6, 2010 — Minority Oppression: Shareholders' Agreement Do Not Govern If Minority Oppression

November 22, 2010 — Shareholder Oppression: Mergers As Oppression

November 12, 2010 — Minority Oppression: Dilution of the minority shareholder's interest.

October 25, 2010 — Minority Oppression: Stealing

October 18, 2010 — Minority Oppression: Conflicts of Interest

September 21, 2010 — When Disputes Go From Dinner Table to the Conference Room

August 31, 2010 — Stark & Stark Shareholder Obtains $3,000,000 Settlement in Shareholder Oppression Case

June 29, 2010 — Closely Held Business - Loans to Directors, Officers or Employees

June 15, 2010 — Minority Oppression: Conflicts of Interest - Taking Advantage of a Business Opportunity

June 2, 2010 — Bad Contracts Between Shareholders - Unfavorable Loans and Lease Agreements

July 21, 2009 — Squeeze-Out Technique: Withholding Information

March 27, 2009 — Squeeze-Out Technique: Excessive Compensation

March 20, 2009 — Squeeze-Out Technique: Termination of the Minority Shareholder's Employment

March 6, 2009 — Squeeze-Out Technique: Withholding Distributions

February 27, 2009 — A Panoramic Discussion of the Squeeze-Out Techniques Often Used By Majority Shareholders

February 2, 2009 — Squeezed Out By Your Business Partner?

March 25, 2008 — Minority Oppression in Relation to "Fair Value" of Stock

August 28, 2007 — A Nutshell on Marketability & Minority Discounts in New Jersey

May 18, 2007 — New Jersey Legal Update - Podcast # 66

February 23, 2007 — New Jersey Legal Update - Podcast # 60

July 10, 2006 — Valuation in Minority Oppression Litigation

December 16, 2005 — New Jersey Legal Update - Podcast # 19