Corporation Law – Page 16 – New York Appellate Digest

EVEN THOUGH THE WRONG CORPORATION WAS NAMED IN THE CONTRACT DEFENDANT SIGNED AS PRESIDENT, DEFENDANT COULD NOT BE HELD PERSONALLY LIABLE, MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE VERDICT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department determined defendant’s motion to set aside the verdict in this contract dispute should have been granted. Defendant signed the contract as president of a corporation which existed but was misnamed. Defendant could not be held personally liable:

“According to the well settled general rule, individual officers or directors are not personally liable on contracts entered into on behalf of a corporation if they do not purport to bind themselves individually’ . . . However, it is also well established that an agent who acts on behalf of a nonexistent principal may be held personally liable on the contract”… . “The rule [was] designed to protect a party who enters into a contract where the other signatory represents that he is signing on behalf of a business entity that in fact does not exist, under any name . . . [Thus,] as long as the identity of the corporation can be reasonably established from the evidence[,] . . . [an e]rror in the use of the corporate name will not be permitted to frustrate the intent which the name was meant to convey’ . . . In such a situation, . . . there is no need or basis to impose personal liability on the person who signed the contract as agent for the entity”… . “Accordingly, absent an allegation that, at the time of the contract, a plaintiff was under an actual misapprehension that there was some other, unincorporated group with virtually the same name as that of the actual business entity, the [c]ourt will not permit the [plaintiff] to capitalize on [a] technical naming error in contravention of the parties’ evident intentions’ ” … .

Thus, courts have determined that the individual who signed the contract may be liable where there was no existing corporation under any name because, under those circumstances, the plaintiff has “no remedy except against the individuals who acted as agents of those purported corporations”… . Where, as here, there was an existing corporation and merely a misnomer in the name of the corporation, courts have declined to impose liability on the individual who signed the contract because the plaintiff has a remedy against the existing, albeit misnamed, corporation… .

Here, we conclude that no one was under an actual misapprehension that there was an entity with the name. TBW, INC. J.N.K. Mach. Corp. v TBW, Ltd., 2017 NY Slip Op 08106, Fourth Dept 11-17-17

CORPORATION LAW (CONTRACT LAW, EVEN THOUGH THE WRONG CORPORATION WAS NAMED IN THE CONTRACT DEFENDANT SIGNED AS PRESIDENT, DEFENDANT COULD NOT BE HELD PERSONALLY LIABLE (FOURTH DEPT))/CONTRACT LAW (CORPORATION LAW, EVEN THOUGH THE WRONG CORPORATION WAS NAMED IN THE CONTRACT DEFENDANT SIGNED AS PRESIDENT, DEFENDANT COULD NOT BE HELD PERSONALLY LIABLE (FOURTH DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE VERDICT, EVEN THOUGH THE WRONG CORPORATION WAS NAMED IN THE CONTRACT DEFENDANT SIGNED AS PRESIDENT, DEFENDANT COULD NOT BE HELD PERSONALLY LIABLE, MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE VERDICT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT))/VERDICT, MOTION TO SET ASIDE, EVEN THOUGH THE WRONG CORPORATION WAS NAMED IN THE CONTRACT DEFENDANT SIGNED AS PRESIDENT, DEFENDANT COULD NOT BE HELD PERSONALLY LIABLE, MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE VERDICT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT))

November 17, 2017

Corporation Law, Unemployment Insurance

CLAIMANT WAS NOT TOTALLY UNEMPLOYED WHEN WINDING UP HIS CORPORATION’S BUSINESS, ACTUAL FINANCIAL GAIN IS NOT A PREREQUISITE TO FINDING A CLAIMANT IS NOT TOTALLY UNEMPLOYED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined claimant was not totally unemployed and was therefore not entitled to unemployment insurance benefits. Claimant was winding up his corporation’s business during the relevant period of time:

“[A] corporate officer who performs activities in connection with the winding up of a corporation will not be considered totally unemployed, even if his or her activities in this regard are minimal” … . Following the sale of the business, claimant took measures in winding up the business during the time period in question, including changing the company name with the Department of State as required by the purchase agreement, distributing the monthly installment payments received from the purchaser of the business, and writing checks from the company account for accountant and counsel fees, taxes, insurance costs, a charitable contribution, office supplies and other business expenses. Under these circumstances, the Board’s determination that claimant was not totally unemployed is supported by substantial evidence and will not be disturbed … . “Contrary to claimant’s assertion, actual financial gain is not a prerequisite to a finding that a claimant is not totally unemployed” … . Matter of Lasker (Commissioner of Labor), 2017 NY Slip Op 07924, Third Dept 11-9-17

UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE (CLAIMANT WAS NOT TOTALLY UNEMPLOYED WHEN WINDING UP HIS CORPORATION’S BUSINESS, ACTUAL FINANCIAL GAIN IS NOT A PREREQUISITE TO FINDING A CLAIMANT IS NOT TOTALLY UNEMPLOYED (THIRD DEPT))/CORPORATION LAW (UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE, CLAIMANT WAS NOT TOTALLY UNEMPLOYED WHEN WINDING UP HIS CORPORATION’S BUSINESS, ACTUAL FINANCIAL GAIN IS NOT A PREREQUISITE TO FINDING A CLAIMANT IS NOT TOTALLY UNEMPLOYED (THIRD DEPT))

November 9, 2017

Corporation Law, Fraud

CORPORATE OFFICER COULD BE PERSONALLY LIABLE FOR CONVERSION AND FRAUD, CAUSES OF ACTION AGAINST THE OFFICER PERSONALLY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED AS SHIELDED BY THE CORPORATE STRUCTURE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that defendant (Cina), an officer of defendant corporation (Artisan), could be held personally liable for his tortious acts. Supreme Court had held the corporate structure insulated Cina from personal liability. It was alleged Cina misrepresented that limestone had been stolen, inducing plaintiff to purchase replacement limestone:

“A director or officer of a corporation does not incur personal liability for its torts merely by reason of his [or her] official character” … , and thus, cannot be liable for torts “attributable to the corporation if he [or she] did not participate in and was not connected with the acts in any manner” … . However, ” [a] corporate officer who participates in the commission of a tort may be held individually liable, regardless of whether the officer acted on behalf of the corporation in the course of official duties and regardless of whether the corporate veil is pierced'” … .

Here, the Supreme Court incorrectly directed the dismissal of the causes of action alleging conversion and fraud insofar as asserted against Cina on the ground that there was “no basis on which to pierce the corporate veil.” The complaint adequately alleged that Cina participated in the act allegedly constituting conversion by asserting that Cina arranged to have the replacement limestone delivered to [another party] instead of the plaintiff, and that he participated in the alleged fraud by knowingly misrepresenting the facts regarding the delivery of the original limestone, with the intent of inducing the plaintiff’s detrimental reliance. That Cina’s alleged conduct may have been committed “on behalf of the corporation in the course of official duties” does not prevent liability from being imposed upon him … . North Shore Architectural Stone, Inc. v American Artisan Constr., Inc., 2017 NY Slip Op 06655, Second Dept 9-27-17

CORPORATION LAW (CORPORATE OFFICER COULD BE PERSONALLY LIABLE FOR CONVERSION AND FRAUD, CAUSES OF ACTION AGAINST THE OFFICER PERSONALLY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED AS SHIELDED BY THE CORPORATE STRUCTURE (SECOND DEPT))/INTENTIONAL TORTS (CORPORATE OFFICERS, PERSONAL LIABILITY, CORPORATE OFFICER COULD BE PERSONALLY LIABLE FOR CONVERSION AND FRAUD, CAUSES OF ACTION AGAINST THE OFFICER PERSONALLY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED AS SHIELDED BY THE CORPORATE STRUCTURE (SECOND DEPT))/FRAUD (CORPORATE OFFICERS, PERSONAL LIABILITY, CORPORATE OFFICER COULD BE PERSONALLY LIABLE FOR CONVERSION AND FRAUD, CAUSES OF ACTION AGAINST THE OFFICER PERSONALLY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED AS SHIELDED BY THE CORPORATE STRUCTURE (SECOND DEPT))/CONVERSION (CORPORATE OFFICERS, PERSONAL LIABILITY, CORPORATE OFFICER COULD BE PERSONALLY LIABLE FOR CONVERSION AND FRAUD, CAUSES OF ACTION AGAINST THE OFFICER PERSONALLY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED AS SHIELDED BY THE CORPORATE STRUCTURE (SECOND DEPT))/OFFICERS (CORPORATE OFFICER COULD BE PERSONALLY LIABLE FOR CONVERSION AND FRAUD, CAUSES OF ACTION AGAINST THE OFFICER PERSONALLY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED AS SHIELDED BY THE CORPORATE STRUCTURE (SECOND DEPT))

September 27, 2017

Corporation Law, Labor Law-Construction Law, Negligence

MULTI-MILLION DOLLAR VERDICTS AGAINST THE OWNER PERSONALLY AND HIS COMPANIES WARRANTED, WORKER SAFETY DISREGARDED WHEN REPAIR TO CONSTRUCTION CRANE UNDERTAKEN, CRANE OPERATOR AND CO-WORKER ON THE GROUND KILLED WHEN CRANE FELL (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Webber, determined the corporate veil was properly pierced, a defense expert’s testimony was properly excluded, and millions in damages for pre-impact terror, conscious pain and suffering, as well as punitive damages, were warranted. However, the court deemed the damages awarded by the jury excessive. The defendants were responsible for ordering a new part for a construction crane defendants provided at a construction site. There was evidence the manufacturer of the part was known to be incompetent but was chosen by the defendants anyway to cut costs. The defendants were aware of serious flaws in a similar part made by the same manufacturer. There was evidence the required testing procedures for the new part were deliberately circumvented by the defendants. The evidence supported the jury’s conclusion that the new part failed causing the crane to fall 200 feet, fatally injuring the plaintiffs, the crane operator (Leo) and a co-worker (Kurtaj) on the ground:

… [O]ne individual (Lomma) exercised domination and control over three separate corporations which he treated as one entity.

There was … sufficient evidence to permit the jury to assess personal liability against Lomma. Contrary to Lomma’s arguments, plaintiffs presented substantial evidence of Lomma’s personal participation in the corporate defendants’ affirmatively tortious acts launching the dangerous instrumentality that caused the deaths of plaintiffs’ decedents … . …

The trial court properly precluded the proposed testimony of defense expert James Wiethorn, which not only was not based on facts in the record, but also contradicted facts in the record … . * * *

Preimpact terror is a sub-category of conscious pain and suffering … . * * *

While Lomma and his companies, which dominated the crane rental market in New York, may not have intended to cause plaintiffs’ deaths, these deaths nevertheless arose from a series of calculated decisions made by Lomma over a period of months, during which time Lomma placed profit over the safety of construction workers and the public, despite having multiple opportunities to change course. * * *

“[I]t is the duty of the court to keep a verdict for punitive damages within reasonable bounds considering the purpose to be achieved as well as the mala fides of the defendant in the particular case”… . Moreover, “[a]lthough states possess considerable discretion over the imposition of punitive damages, the United States Supreme Court has emphasized that there are constitutional limitations on such awards, and that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits the imposition of grossly excessive or arbitrary punishments upon a tortfeasor” … . Matter of 91st St. Crane Collapse Litig., 2017 NY Slip Op 06419, First Dept 9-12-17

NEGLIGENCE (MULTI-MILLION DOLLAR VERDICTS AGAINST THE OWNER PERSONALLY AND HIS COMPANIES WARRANTED, WORKER SAFETY DISREGARDED WHEN REPAIR TO CONSTRUCTION CRANE UNDERTAKEN, CRANE OPERATOR AND CO-WORKER ON THE GROUND KILLED WHEN CRANE FELL (FIRST DEPT))/CORPORATION LAW (PIERCE CORPORATE VEIL, MULTI-MILLION DOLLAR VERDICTS AGAINST THE OWNER PERSONALLY AND HIS COMPANIES WARRANTED, WORKER SAFETY DISREGARDED WHEN REPAIR TO CONSTRUCTION CRANE UNDERTAKEN, CRANE OPERATOR AND CO-WORKER ON THE GROUND KILLED WHEN CRANE FELL (FIRST DEPT))/PIERCE CORPORATE VEIL (MULTI-MILLION DOLLAR VERDICTS AGAINST THE OWNER PERSONALLY AND HIS COMPANIES WARRANTED, WORKER SAFETY DISREGARDED WHEN REPAIR TO CONSTRUCTION CRANE UNDERTAKEN, CRANE OPERATOR AND CO-WORKER ON THE GROUND KILLED WHEN CRANE FELL (FIRST DEPT))CRANES (MULTI-MILLION DOLLAR VERDICTS AGAINST THE OWNER PERSONALLY AND HIS COMPANIES WARRANTED, WORKER SAFETY DISREGARDED WHEN REPAIR TO CONSTRUCTION CRANE UNDERTAKEN, CRANE OPERATOR AND CO-WORKER ON THE GROUND KILLED WHEN CRANE FELL (FIRST DEPT))/LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW (MULTI-MILLION DOLLAR VERDICTS AGAINST THE OWNER PERSONALLY AND HIS COMPANIES WARRANTED, WORKER SAFETY DISREGARDED WHEN REPAIR TO CONSTRUCTION CRANE UNDERTAKEN, CRANE OPERATOR AND CO-WORKER ON THE GROUND KILLED WHEN CRANE FELL (FIRST DEPT))

September 12, 2017

Civil Procedure, Contract Law, Corporation Law

FURTHER DISCOVERY NECESSARY TO DETERMINE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SIGNATORIES AND NON-SIGNATORIES TO A CONTRACT WITH A FORUM SELECTION CLAUSE, IF THE RELATIONSHIP IS CLOSE ENOUGH, NON-SIGNATORIES WILL BE COVERED BY THE CLAUSE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Kapnick, determined further jurisdictional discovery was required before certain causes of action could be dismissed on jurisdictional grounds. If the relationship with signatories of a contract with a forum selection clause is close enough, non-signatories will be covered by the clause. Discovery was necessary to determine how close the relationship was. The opinion is too detailed and complex to fully summarize here. The crux of the action is the alleged failure of the corporations to pay interest due on notes held by shareholders:

“Under New York law, a signatory to a contract may invoke a forum selection clause against a non-signatory if the non-signatory is closely related’ to one of the signatories such that enforcement of the forum selection clause is foreseeable by virtue of the relationship between the signatory and the party sought to be bound'” … . If the nonsignatory party has an ownership interest or a direct or indirect controlling interest in the signing party … , or, the entities or individuals consulted with each other regarding decisions and were intimately involved in the decision-making process… , then, a finding of personal jurisdiction based on a forum selection clause may be proper, as it achieves the “rationale behind binding closely related entities to the forum selection clause [which] is to promote stable and dependable trade relations.'” … .

Here, plaintiffs allege that the individual defendants, by virtue of their senior management positions, power and decision-making authority, and B & B, as the parent company of BTEL and as a principal shareholder of 39.6% of BTEL’s stock, had actual knowledge at the time of the offering that BTEL was insolvent and would be incapable of meeting its obligations under the notes; that they authorized, participated in, and promoted the offering; and that they caused the offering memoranda to be distributed into the marketplace. This is enough, at this stage, to permit jurisdictional discovery as to the nature of B & B’s and the individual defendants’ actual knowledge and role in the offering of the notes, and their responsibilities connected thereto, because this information, which may result in a determination that the nonsignatories are indeed “closely related” to the signing parties, is a fact that cannot be presently known to plaintiffs, but rather, is within the exclusive control of defendants …. . Universal Inv. Advisory SA v Bakrie Telecom PTE, Ltd., 2017 NY Slip Op 06344, First Dept 8-29-17

CIVIL PROCEDURE (JURISDICTION, DISCOVERY, FORUM SELECTION CLAUSE, FURTHER DISCOVERY NECESSARY TO DETERMINE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SIGNATORIES AND NON-SIGNATORIES TO A CONTRACT WITH A FORUM SELECTION CLAUSE, IF THE RELATIONSHIP IS CLOSE ENOUGH, NON-SIGNATORIES WILL BE COVERED BY THE CLAUSE (FIRST DEPT))/JURISDICTION (DISCOVERY, FORUM SELECTION CLAUSE, FURTHER DISCOVERY NECESSARY TO DETERMINE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SIGNATORIES AND NON-SIGNATORIES TO A CONTRACT WITH A FORUM SELECTION CLAUSE, IF THE RELATIONSHIP IS CLOSE ENOUGH, NON-SIGNATORIES WILL BE COVERED BY THE CLAUSE (FIRST DEPT))/DISCOVERY (CIVIL PROCEDURE, JURISDICTION, FORUM SELECTION CLAUSE, FURTHER DISCOVERY NECESSARY TO DETERMINE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SIGNATORIES AND NON-SIGNATORIES TO A CONTRACT WITH A FORUM SELECTION CLAUSE, IF THE RELATIONSHIP IS CLOSE ENOUGH, NON-SIGNATORIES WILL BE COVERED BY THE CLAUSE (FIRST DEPT))/CONTRACT LAW (FORUM SELECTION CLAUSE, FURTHER DISCOVERY NECESSARY TO DETERMINE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SIGNATORIES AND NON-SIGNATORIES TO A CONTRACT WITH A FORUM SELECTION CLAUSE, IF THE RELATIONSHIP IS CLOSE ENOUGH, NON-SIGNATORIES WILL BE COVERED BY THE CLAUSE (FIRST DEPT))/FORUM SELECTION CLAUSE (CONTRACT LAW, (JURISDICTION, DISCOVERY, FORUM SELECTION CLAUSE, FURTHER DISCOVERY NECESSARY TO DETERMINE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SIGNATORIES AND NON-SIGNATORIES TO A CONTRACT WITH A FORUM SELECTION CLAUSE, IF THE RELATIONSHIP IS CLOSE ENOUGH, NON-SIGNATORIES WILL BE COVERED BY THE CLAUSE (FIRST DEPT))/CORPORATION LAW (FORUM SELECTION CLAUSE, JURISDICTION, DISCOVERY, FORUM SELECTION CLAUSE, FURTHER DISCOVERY NECESSARY TO DETERMINE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SIGNATORIES AND NON-SIGNATORIES TO A CONTRACT WITH A FORUM SELECTION CLAUSE, IF THE RELATIONSHIP IS CLOSE ENOUGH, NON-SIGNATORIES WILL BE COVERED BY THE CLAUSE (FIRST DEPT))

August 29, 2017

Corporation Law, Products Liability

COMPANY WHICH PURCHASED MANUFACTURER OF ALLEGEDLY DEFECTIVE LADDER NOT LIABLE, COMPANY DID NOT CONTINUE MANUFACTURER’S BUSINESS (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the Bauer defendants’ motion for summary judgment in this products liability action should have granted. The Bauer defendants were successors in interest to the company (Babcock) which manufactured the allegedly defective ladder. However. the Bauer defendants demonstrated they did not continue the manufacturer’s business:

… [A]s a general rule, a corporation which acquires the assets of another corporation is not liable for the predecessor’s tortious conduct, including a defective and dangerous product manufactured by the predecessor … . There are four exceptions to this general rule against successor liability. A corporation may be held liable for the torts of its predecessors if (1) the successor corporation expressly or impliedly assumed the predecessor’s tort liability, (2) there was a consolidation or merger of seller and purchaser, (3) the purchasing corporation was a mere continuation of the selling corporation, or (4) the transaction was entered into fraudulently to escape such obligations … .

Here, the Bauer defendants established their prima facie entitlement to summary judgment with evidence that they did not make or sell the subject ladder, that they were not liable pursuant to the general rule against successor liability, and that none of the exceptions to the general rule applied here. In opposition, the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact with respect to any of the exceptions to the general rule, including the two they contested: that Babcock Co., the purchasing corporation, was allegedly a mere continuation of Old Babcock, and that the Bauer defendants impliedly assumed Old Babcock’s tort liability.

With respect to the mere continuation exception, the underlying theory is that, if a corporation goes through “a mere change in form without a significant change in substance, it should not be allowed to escape liability” … . Thus, this exception applies where “it is not simply the business of the original corporation which continues, but the corporate entity itself”… . A continuation envisions something akin to a corporate reorganization, rather than a mere sale, with “a common identity of directors, stockholders and the existence of only one corporation at the completion of the transfer”… .

* * * The mere fact that some … former employees worked for [defendant]. was insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact … . Wass v County of Nassau, 2017 NY Slip Op 06317, Second Dept 8-23-17

PRODUCTS LIABILITY (COMPANY WHICH PURCHASED MANUFACTURER OF ALLEGEDLY DEFECTIVE LADDER NOT LIABLE, COMPANY DID NOT CONTINUE MANUFACTURER’S BUSINESS (SECOND DEPT))/CORPORATION LAW (PRODUCTS LIABILITY, COMPANY WHICH PURCHASED MANUFACTURER OF ALLEGEDLY DEFECTIVE LADDER NOT LIABLE, COMPANY DID NOT CONTINUE MANUFACTURER’S BUSINESS (SECOND DEPT))

August 23, 2017

Civil Procedure, Corporation Law, Fiduciary Duty

ACTION TO DISSOLVE A CLOSELY HELD CORPORATION BASED UPON BREACH OF A FIDUCIARY DUTY WAS TIMELY AND JUDICIAL DISSOLUTION WAS PROPERLY GRANTED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined Supreme Court properly dissolved a closely-held corporation, finding that the respondent shareholders had “breached their fiduciary duties owed to petitioners by engaging in oppressive conduct aimed at ‘freez[ing]’ petitioners out of the corporation, as well as looting, wasting and/or diverting corporate assets for noncorporate purposes.” The decision is detailed and fact-specific. The court noted that the shares of two of the petitioners were beneficial shares in that they were held in trust by their father, who was also a petitioner. Although the children did not have standing to bring an action to dissolve the corporation because the holders of beneficial shares cannot vote, their father, as trustee, could vote, which conferred standing. The court further noted that an action to dissolve a corporation based on a breach of a fiduciary duty is equitable in nature and therefore the six-year statute of limitations applies. The action was timely because the first overt repudiation of a fiduciary duty by the respondents occurred within six years of the action:

Here, the gravamen of the petition is that respondents, as the majority shareholders, breached their fiduciary duties owed to petitioners, as the minority shareholders. Although the petition alleges fraudulent acts in the form of looting, the allegation of fraud is not essential to the breach of fiduciary duty claim. In light of this, and the fact that the remedy of a judicial dissolution is equitable in nature, we find that “the six-year limitations period of CPLR 213 (1) applies” … , and it does not commence “until there has been an open repudiation by the fiduciary or the relationship has otherwise been clearly terminated”… . In our view, respondents’ attempt in 2009 to force petitioners to sell their shares is the earliest point at which respondents can be said to have openly repudiated the fiduciary relationship. Given that this proceeding was commenced within six years of the 2009 force-out attempt, we agree with Supreme Court that this proceeding is not time-barred. * * *

Business Corporation Law § 1104-a permits a court to dissolve a closely-held corporation where, as is relevant here, those in control of the corporation have engaged in “oppressive actions toward the complaining shareholders” or have “looted, wasted, or diverted” corporate assets for noncorporate purposes (Business Corporation Law § 1104-a [a] [1], [2] …). “Although the term ‘oppressive actions’ is not statutorily defined, the Court of Appeals has held that ‘oppression should be deemed to arise . . . when the majority conduct substantially defeats expectations that, objectively viewed, were both reasonable under the circumstances and were central to the petitioner[s’] decision to join the venture'”… . Contrary to respondents’ contention, this standard is equally applicable to passive shareholders, such as petitioners, inasmuch as the standard is not focused on the complaining shareholders’ level of involvement with the corporation but, rather, their reasonable expectations and whether those expectations were defeated … . Matter of Twin Bay Vil., Inc. v Kasian, 2017 NY Slip Op 06024, Third Dept 8-3-17

CORPORATION LAW (DISSOLUTION, ACTION TO DISSOLVE A CLOSELY HELD CORPORATION BASED UPON BREACH OF A FIDUCIARY DUTY WAS TIMELY AND JUDICIAL DISSOLUTION WAS PROPERLY GRANTED (THIRD DEPT))/DISSOLUTION (CORPORATION LAW, ACTION TO DISSOLVE A CLOSELY HELD CORPORATION BASED UPON BREACH OF A FIDUCIARY DUTY WAS TIMELY AND JUDICIAL DISSOLUTION WAS PROPERLY GRANTED (THIRD DEPT))/FIDUCIARY DUTY (CORPORATION LAW, ACTION TO DISSOLVE A CLOSELY HELD CORPORATION BASED UPON BREACH OF A FIDUCIARY DUTY WAS TIMELY AND JUDICIAL DISSOLUTION WAS PROPERLY GRANTED (THIRD DEPT))/CLOSELY HELD CORPORATIONS (DISSOLUTION, ACTION TO DISSOLVE A CLOSELY HELD CORPORATION BASED UPON BREACH OF A FIDUCIARY DUTY WAS TIMELY AND JUDICIAL DISSOLUTION WAS PROPERLY GRANTED (THIRD DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS, ACTION TO DISSOLVE A CLOSELY HELD CORPORATION BASED UPON BREACH OF A FIDUCIARY DUTY WAS TIMELY AND JUDICIAL DISSOLUTION WAS PROPERLY GRANTED (THIRD DEPT))/STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS (DISSOLUTION OF CORPORATIONS, ACTION TO DISSOLVE A CLOSELY HELD CORPORATION BASED UPON BREACH OF A FIDUCIARY DUTY WAS TIMELY AND JUDICIAL DISSOLUTION WAS PROPERLY GRANTED (THIRD DEPT))

August 3, 2017

Corporation Law, Real Property Law

REAL PROPERTY TRANSFER BY RELIGIOUS CORPORATION INVALID, CORPORATION DID NOT SEEK COURT APPROVAL FOR THE TRANSFER 2ND DEPT.

The Second Department determined summary judgment was properly awarded to plaintiff in this action to quiet title. Plaintiff religious corporation was required to get the court’s permission before selling property to defendant. Because plaintiff did not seek leave of court, its transfer of the property to defendant was invalid:

Religious Corporations Law § 12(1) provides that in order to sell any of its real property, a religious corporation must apply for, and obtain, leave of court pursuant to Not-For-Profit Corporation Law § 511 … . “The purpose of this requirement is to protect the members of the religious corporation, the real parties in interest, from loss through unwise bargains and from perversion of the use of the property” … . Here, the plaintiff, a religious corporation subject to the requirements of Religious Corporations Law § 12(1), established, prima facie, that its conveyance of the subject property to the defendants was invalid because it was made without leave of court … . Heights v Schwarz, 2017 NY Slip Op 05707, 2nd Dept 7-19-17

CORPORATION LAW (RELIGIOUS CORPORATIONS, REAL PROPERTY TRANSFER, REAL PROPERTY TRANSFER BY RELIGIOUS CORPORATION INVALID, CORPORATION DID NOT SEEK COURT APPROVAL FOR THE TRANSFER 2ND DEPT)/REAL PROPERTY (RELIGIOUS CORPORATIONS, REAL PROPERTY TRANSFER, REAL PROPERTY TRANSFER BY RELIGIOUS CORPORATION INVALID, CORPORATION DID NOT SEEK COURT APPROVAL FOR THE TRANSFER 2ND DEPT)/RELIGIOUS CORPORATIONS (REAL PROPERTY TRANSFER BY RELIGIOUS CORPORATION INVALID, CORPORATION DID NOT SEEK COURT APPROVAL FOR THE TRANSFER 2ND DEPT)/NOT FOR PROFIT CORPORATION LAW (RELIGIOUS CORPORATIONS, REAL PROPERTY TRANSFER, REAL PROPERTY TRANSFER BY RELIGIOUS CORPORATION INVALID, CORPORATION DID NOT SEEK COURT APPROVAL FOR THE TRANSFER 2ND DEPT)

July 19, 2017

Arbitration, Contract Law, Corporation Law

OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES OF DEFENDANT CORPORATION, ALTHOUGH NON-SIGNATORIES, CAN ENFORCE THE ARBITRATION PROVISION OF THE CONTRACT BETWEEN PLAINTIFF AND THE CORPORATION 2ND DEPT.

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined individual defendants, who were officers and/or employees of defendant corporation McGowan Builders, Inc, could enforce the agreement to arbitrate made between plaintiff and the corporation:

Here, the alleged misconduct attributed to the individual defendants in the complaint related to their behavior as employees and officers of McGowan Builders. Since “a corporation can only act through its officers and employees” … , any breach of the agreement would necessarily have to occur as a result of some action or inaction attributable to an officer or employee of McGowan Builders. As the Court of Appeals has recognized under similar circumstances, a rule allowing corporate officers and employees to enforce arbitration agreements entered into by their corporation “is necessary not only to prevent circumvention of arbitration agreements but also to effectuate the intent of the signatory parties to protect individuals acting on behalf of the principal in furtherance of the agreement” … . Under the circumstances of this case, the individual defendants were entitled to enforce the arbitration provision contained in the subcontract agreement between McGowan Builders and the plaintiff … . Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have granted that branch of the motion of the moving defendants, including the individual defendants, which was to compel arbitration of the causes of action alleging conversion, unfair competition, and tortious interference insofar as asserted against them. Degraw Constr. Group, Inc. v McGowan Bldrs., Inc., 2017 NY Slip Op 05580, 2nd Dept 7-12-17

ARBITRATION (OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES OF DEFENDANT CORPORATION, ALTHOUGH NON-SIGNATORIES, CAN ENFORCE THE ARBITRATION PROVISION OF THE CONTRACT BETWEEN PLAINTIFF AND THE CORPORATION 2ND DEPT)/CONTRACT LAW (ARBITRATION, OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES OF DEFENDANT CORPORATION, ALTHOUGH NON-SIGNATORIES, CAN ENFORCE THE ARBITRATION PROVISION OF THE CONTRACT BETWEEN PLAINTIFF AND THE CORPORATION 2ND DEPT)/CORPORATION LAW (ARBITRATION, OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES OF DEFENDANT CORPORATION, ALTHOUGH NON-SIGNATORIES, CAN ENFORCE THE ARBITRATION PROVISION OF THE CONTRACT BETWEEN PLAINTIFF AND THE CORPORATION 2ND DEPT)

July 12, 2017

Corporation Law, Insurance Law, Securities

QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER BANK OF AMERICA’S PURCHASE OF THE ASSETS OF COUNTRYWIDE WAS A DE FACTO MERGER ALLOWING THE INSURER OF RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE-BACKED SECURITIES ISSUED BY COUNTRYWIDE TO SUE BANK OF AMERICA.

The First Department determined questions of fact precluded summary judgment in this action by Ambac, an insurer of residential mortgage-backed securities issued by defendant Countrywide, against defendants Countrywide and Bank of America (BAC). BAC purchased the assets of Countrywide. Ambac argued there was a de facto merger of Countrywide and Bank of America such that Countrywide shareholders became shareholders of BAC, allowing Ambac to sue BAC:

“[C]ontinuity of ownership is the touchstone of the [de facto merger] concept and thus a necessary predicate to a finding of a de facto merger” … . Continuity of ownership “exists where the shareholders of the predecessor corporation become direct or indirect shareholders of the successor corporation as the result of the successor’s purchase of the predecessor’s assets, as occurs in a stock-for-assets transaction” … . “Stated otherwise, continuity of ownership describes a situation where the parties to the transaction become owners together of what formerly belonged to each” … . * * *

We agree with BAC that there can be no continuity of ownership where the asset seller receives fair value consideration for its assets… . Although BAC maintains that it paid fair value for Countrywide’s assets, Ambac points to evidence showing that large amounts of money Countrywide received in the asset sale were then cycled back to BAC and its subsidiaries. Thus, issues of fact exist as to whether the transactions were coordinated with the goal of combining BAC’s and Countrywide’s mortgage businesses while avoiding Countrywide’s liabilities so as to benefit Countrywide’s former shareholders at the expense of its creditors. Ambac Assur. Corp. v Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 2017 NY Slip Op 03886, 1st Dept 5-16-17

CORPORATION LAW (DE FACTO MERGER, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER BANK OF AMERICA’S PURCHASE OF THE ASSETS OF COUNTRYWIDE WAS A DE FACTO MERGER ALLOWING THE INSURER OF RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE-BACKED SECURITIES ISSUED BY COUNTRYWIDE TO SUE BANK OF AMERICA)/SECURITIES (RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE-BACKED SECURITIES, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER BANK OF AMERICA’S PURCHASE OF THE ASSETS OF COUNTRYWIDE WAS A DE FACTO MERGER ALLOWING THE INSURER OF RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE-BACKED SECURITIES ISSUED BY COUNTRYWIDE TO SUE BANK OF AMERICA)/INSURANCE LAW (RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE-BACKED SECURITIES, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER BANK OF AMERICA’S PURCHASE OF THE ASSETS OF COUNTRYWIDE WAS A DE FACTO MERGER ALLOWING THE INSURER OF RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE-BACKED SECURITIES ISSUED BY COUNTRYWIDE TO SUE BANK OF AMERICA)/RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE-BACKED SECURITIES (DE FACTO MERGER, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER BANK OF AMERICA’S PURCHASE OF THE ASSETS OF COUNTRYWIDE WAS A DE FACTO MERGER ALLOWING THE INSURER OF RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE-BACKED SECURITIES ISSUED BY COUNTRYWIDE TO SUE BANK OF AMERICA)/DE FACTO MERGER (CORPORATION LAW, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER BANK OF AMERICA’S PURCHASE OF THE ASSETS OF COUNTRYWIDE WAS A DE FACTO MERGER ALLOWING THE INSURER OF RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE-BACKED SECURITIES ISSUED BY COUNTRYWIDE TO SUE BANK OF AMERICA)/DEBTOR-CREDITOR (DE FACTO MERGER, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER BANK OF AMERICA’S PURCHASE OF THE ASSETS OF COUNTRYWIDE WAS A DE FACTO MERGER ALLOWING THE INSURER OF RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE-BACKED SECURITIES ISSUED BY COUNTRYWIDE TO SUE BANK OF AMERICA)

May 16, 2017