The corporate opportunity doctrine precludes fiduciaries from “divert[ing] and exploit[ing] for their own benefit any opportunity that should be deemed an asset of the corporation.” O’Mahony v. Whiston, No. 652621/2014, 2019 WL 4899030, at *6 (N.Y. Co. Oct. 4, 2019) (citing Alexander & Alexander of N.Y., Inc. v. Fritzen, 147 A.D.2d 241, 246 (1st Dep’t 1989)). The doctrine is premised on the notion that a corporate officer or director may not personally profit at the expense of the corporation. See Troffa v. Troffa, No. 6095102016, 2022 WL 3140457, at *6 (Suffolk Co. Aug. 2, 2022). When a fiduciary usurps or diverts a corporate opportunity, “he may be held accountable for the fruits of his wrongdoing.” Sheiffer v. Petry Holding, No. 601792/2004, 2005 WL 6578258 (N.Y. Co. 2005).

New York courts generally use two non-exclusive tests to determine whether the opportunity at issue was a corporate opportunity: (1) the tangible expectancy test and (2) the line of business test. While these tests help assess what constitutes a “corporate opportunity,” some courts take a more general approach assessing all relevant factors. Recent Commercial Division cases applying these tests are discussed below.

Tangible Expectancy Test

This content has been archived.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

Why am I seeing this?

LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.

For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]