Liquidating distribution from partnership
It specifies several grounds for judicial intervention and provides a panoply of equitable remedies. (b) In an action by a shareholder when it is established that: . The corporation is a proper and often even a necessary party, because often the corporation takes the formal action which effects the injury.
For the close corporation claimant, the key grounds are found in clauses 2 and 3 of subdivision 1(b). Moreover, the corporation is typically the source or focus of the requested relief.
A shareholder asserts a direct claim to vindicate some right personal to the shareholder.
The shareholder suffers the harm directly, rather than as a consequence of damage to the corporation.
is the director of the Mitchell Fellows Program at the William Mitchell College of Law.
He was the reporter for the MSBA Business Law Section Task Force that developed the Professional Firms Act and the principal drafter of the act distinguishing between direct and derivative suits can be especially difficult, and the stakes can be especially high.
For example, when those in control of the corporation act negligently, Likewise, if a corporate director takes for him or herself a business opportunity that properly belongs to the corporation, it is the corporation, not the shareholder, that has lost the opportunity and any attendant profits. 3a by adding a presumption that written agreements, including employment agreements and buy-sell agreements, reflect the parties’ reasonable expectations).
In ordinary circumstances, “[w]hether or not a corporation shall seek to enforce in the courts a cause of action for damages is, like other business questions, ordinarily a matter of internal management and is left to the discretion of the directors.” A derivative lawsuit, therefore, necessarily impugns the management of the corporation and inevitably involves two distinct fights. 2 substituting “a corporation that is not a publicly held corporation” for “a closely held corporation”); 1994 Minn. For cases invoking Minnesota Statutes s 302A.751, see Mc Callum v.
As background, Part II describes direct and derivative claims in their pure forms.
Under these clauses: A court may grant any equitable relief it deems just and reasonable in the circumstances or may dissolve a corporation and liquidate its assets and business: . For example, although as a practical matter it will be the majority shareholder who decides to fire a minority shareholder, Remedies from a direct claim benefit the shareholder plaintiff directly and vary depending upon the severity of the misconduct and the other circumstances of the case.
A court may order a buy-out of the injured shareholder’s shares or grant any other equitable relief, including dissolution of the corporation.
Once such a conflict is established, the court explained, the burden of proof shifts to the defendant directors: [The directors’] dealings with the corporation are subjected to rigorous scrutiny and where any of their contracts or engagements with the corporation is challenged the burden is on the director or stockholder not only to prove good faith of the transaction but also to show its inherent fairness from the viewpoint of the corporation and those interested . A minority shareholder brought a derivative suit alleging that two of the shareholder-managers had appropriated for themselves a business opportunity properly belonging to the corporation. 2 by instructing the court when ordering a buy-out to defer to negotiated buy-out agreements, unless the terms or conditions are unreasonable); 1982 Minn.
The defendants had formed other corporations and a partnership which then performed tasks related to the first corporation’s business.