Inside: Shareholder disputes: Things fall apart
Shareholder disputes can be dangerous because the litigation process can be expensive, time-consuming and can end with serious consequences.
October 21, 2013 at 04:00 AM
4 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.com
There are many good reasons to organize a business venture as a corporation. But by taking advantage of the corporate form, a company exposes itself to the complex, and often difficult to resolve, quagmire of shareholder disputes. In today's article, I will briefly discuss some of the common ways a corporation can become embroiled in one of these disputes.
Shareholder disputes often occur is when an individual shareholder, or a group of shareholders, has a major disagreement with the direction of the corporation. These disputes can be caused by a wide range of problems, from personal animosity between owners to disagreement about the business plans of the corporation.
A minority shareholder may be frozen out of the corporation by the other partners. If the minority shareholder is also an employee of the company, they may be fired from that position, which is often their main source of income. Or, the majority shareholders may begin to use their power over the corporation to benefit themselves, perhaps by increasing their own compensation, at the expense of the minority shareholder. More benignly, the majority shareholders may cut the minority shareholder out of the decision-making process. In any event, the minority shareholder feels as though he has been marginalized, and, understandably, wants redress.
It may be that a shareholder wishes to divest himself of his shares and move on, but, is not free to do so because of the articles of incorporation or some other reason. A further complicating factor may be a case where the departing shareholder intends to set up a competing business once he frees himself of his fiduciary duties. In that case, it can be very difficult for the parties to reach a compromise, as their goals can often appear to be directly at odds with each other. Similarly, it might be that a partner, in addition to wanting to leave the company, also wants to take a portion of the company's business with him, often feeling that it is “his” part of the company. In either case, these disputes can be bitter and often end up badly hurting the company.
An even more dire circumstance is when two partners of a company, each holding 50 percent of the corporation, have a falling out. Not only is there the potential for litigation, but also, until the two owners can come to some sort of understanding, there is the possibility of deadlock in making major business decisions that need to be ratified by the shareholders. This can paralyze a business completely. The dispute will quickly lead to the business itself being destroyed while the partners fight.
Shareholder disputes can be dangerous for a corporation because the litigation process can be expensive, time-consuming and, depending on the circumstances, can end in a variety of remedies with serious consequences, up to and including court-ordered corporate dissolution. Compounding this difficulty is that, more than most other forms of dispute, a shareholder dispute, even if not personal at the outset, can quickly become about petty rivalries and jealousies. After all, it is common in cases as these that the litigants are long-time associates of one another who have seen their relationship degenerate into open conflict.
Ultimately, it is impossible to craft a perfect shareholder agreement that will definitely prevent any future shareholder disputes. Many shareholder disputes come about because of the inherent difficulties in any sort of enterprise that relies on cooperation. That is not to say, however, that there is nothing a business can do to try and prevent or minimize these disputes. By including provisions in a shareholders' agreement guaranteeing minority rights in the cooperation, or by making it more difficult for a shareholder to lose their position as an employee with a company, the risk of that sort of dispute arising can be diminished. Similarly, by recognizing the possibility that any partnership may not last forever, the parties can make provisions for a future dissolution of their relationship in advance, determining things such as whether an ex-partner can take business with him, and how and to whom he can sell his stock, which can prevent costly litigation in the future.
Of course, the complexities of shareholder relations being what they are, and the fact that every company is facing its own particular set of challenges and concerns, hiring an experienced commercial lawyer can often be the difference between an amicable resolution to a shareholder dispute and a fractious litigation process that can often severely damage, if not destroy, a company.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllBeyond the Title: Developing a Personal Brand as General Counsel
Step 1 for Successful Negotiators: Believe in Yourself
Deluge of Trump-Leery Government Lawyers Join Job Market, Setting Up Free-for-All for Law Firm, In-House Openings
4 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Call for Nominations: Elite Trial Lawyers 2025
- 2Senate Judiciary Dems Release Report on Supreme Court Ethics
- 3Senate Confirms Last 2 of Biden's California Judicial Nominees
- 4Morrison & Foerster Doles Out Year-End and Special Bonuses, Raises Base Compensation for Associates
- 5Tom Girardi to Surrender to Federal Authorities on Jan. 7
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250