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
© 2025 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 AllPrivate Equity-Backed Medical Imaging Chain Hires CLO, Continuing C-Suite Makeover
White Castle GC Becomes Chain's First President From Outside Family
Trending Stories
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
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