You are here: / 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).

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))

,

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)

, ,

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)

, ,

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)

, ,

CONSPIRACY JURISDICTION DISCUSSED IN THIS COMPLEX LITIGATION INVOLVING MANY INTER-RELATED INTERNATIONAL CORPORATIONS AND ALLEGATIONS OF FRAUD.

The First Department, in an issue-rich decision which is sparse on facts, determined several jurisdiction and choice of law issues in a complex lawsuit involving a great many inter-related international corporations and allegations of fraud. One of the many jurisdiction issues discussed is so-called “conspiracy jurisdiction;” a sample of that discussion follows:

The remaining possibility for obtaining jurisdiction over defendants-appellants is conspiracy jurisdiction … . Defendants contend that the complaint does not allege an agreement by the Citco defendants to participate in a conspiracy to defraud Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority Retirement Fund (MBTARF) and that MBTARF failed to identify an overt act. However, we find that the complaint contains factual allegations from which such an agreement can be inferred … . It also alleges an overt act, namely, that alleged co-conspirators Mr. Fletcher and FAM took $7.1 million of MBTARF’s investment in nonparty Fletcher Fixed Income Alpha Fund, Ltd. (Alpha) and used it in violation of Alpha’s offering memorandum as partial repayment of Leveraged’s loan to Citco Bank and SFT … .

Turning to the additional requirements for conspiracy jurisdiction … , we must examine Leveraged’s and Fletcher Income Arbitrage Fund Ltd. (Arbitrage)’s conspiracy claims with respect to personal jurisdiction. Leveraged and Arbitrage’s conspiracy claims allege that Mr. Fletcher and FAM fraudulently transferred cash from plaintiff Fletcher International, Ltd. to Unternaehrer in the FIP Transaction. The transfer was made by instructing SFT to transfer money from FIP’s account to Citco Bank’s account at HSBC New York, for further credit to SFT, for further credit to Unternaehrer. Using a New York bank account for a fraudulent scheme constitutes a tort within New York … .

MBTARF’s conspiracy claim alleges that Mr. Fletcher and FAM made misrepresentations to it about how its investment would be used. It also alleges that they diverted its money. Drawing inferences in favor of plaintiffs … , we find that the misrepresentation and diversion occurred in New York because FAM and Mr. Fletcher were located there.

We find that the additional Lawati factors (102 AD3d at 428) are satisfied as to Citco Group but not Citco Global. Since Citco Group is the parent, it is logical to infer that Citco Cayman (a New York co-conspirator because it has not contested jurisdiction) acted under its control. However, since Citco Global is only a sibling of Citco Cayman, it is not as logical to infer that Citco Cayman acted under Citco Global’s control. FIA Leveraged Fund Ltd. v Grant Thornton LLP, 2017 NY Slip Op 03887, 1st Dept 5-16-17

 

CIVIL PROCEDURE (CONSPIRACY JURISDICTION DISCUSSED IN THIS COMPLEX LITIGATION INVOLVING MANY INTER-RELATED INTERNATIONAL CORPORATIONS AND ALLEGATIONS OF FRAUD)/JURISDICTION  (CONSPIRACY JURISDICTION DISCUSSED IN THIS COMPLEX LITIGATION INVOLVING MANY INTER-RELATED INTERNATIONAL CORPORATIONS AND ALLEGATIONS OF FRAUD)/CONSPIRACY JURISDICTION (CONSPIRACY JURISDICTION DISCUSSED IN THIS COMPLEX LITIGATION INVOLVING MANY INTER-RELATED INTERNATIONAL CORPORATIONS AND ALLEGATIONS OF FRAUD)/CORPORATION LAW (JURISDICTION, CONSPIRACY JURISDICTION DISCUSSED IN THIS COMPLEX LITIGATION INVOLVING MANY INTER-RELATED INTERNATIONAL CORPORATIONS AND ALLEGATIONS OF FRAUD)/FRAUD (CONSPIRACY JURISDICTION DISCUSSED IN THIS COMPLEX LITIGATION INVOLVING MANY INTER-RELATED INTERNATIONAL CORPORATIONS AND ALLEGATIONS OF FRAUD)

, ,

ORAL OFFER TO SELL SHARES IN FAMILY CORPORATION FORMED SOLELY TO OWN ONE PIECE OF REAL PROPERTY WAS SUBJECT TO THE STATUTE OF FRAUDS, THE WRITING REQUIREMENT WAS NOT REMOVED BY PART PERFORMANCE. 

The Third Department determined defendant’s oral offer to sell to plaintiff her shares in a family corporation (SEI) formed solely to hold one piece of property (Beach Cove) as its single asset was subject to the statute of frauds (and therefore unenforceable). The court further found that certain actions, like opening a bank account, did not amount to part performance sufficient to overcome the writing requirement of the statute of frauds:

​

SEI was a single-asset corporation — that single asset being its ownership of Beach Cove — and, inasmuch as the alleged oral agreement involved the sale of plaintiff’s shares of stock in a corporation whose only asset was an interest in real property, the statute of frauds indeed applied here … . As the alleged oral agreement was not reduced to writing, plaintiff could avoid application of the statute of frauds only if her conduct fell within the part performance exception. In this regard, while the actions upon which plaintiff relies — i.e., opening a bank account in anticipation of a wire transfer of funds from defendant, retrieving her SEI stock certificates to relinquish to defendant, hiring an attorney to coordinate with defendant and/or reduce the alleged oral agreement to writing, timely removing her personal possessions from Beach Cove and promptly vacating the premises in accordance with defendant’s alleged wishes — are consistent with plaintiff’s assertion that she and defendant had a deal to sell plaintiff’s shares in SEI to defendant for $900,000, such actions are not unequivocally referable to — or unintelligible without reference to — the alleged oral agreement, nor so substantial in quality to irremediably alter the situation. Wells v Hodgkins, 2017 NY Slip Op 03824, 3rd Dept 5-11-17

CONTRACT LAW (ORAL OFFER TO SELL SHARES IN FAMILY CORPORATION FORMED SOLELY TO OWN ONE PIECE OF REAL PROPERTY WAS SUBJECT TO THE STATUTE OF FRAUDS, THE WRITING REQUIREMENT WAS NOT REMOVED BY PART PERFORMANCE)/REAL PROPERTY (ORAL OFFER TO SELL SHARES IN FAMILY CORPORATION FORMED SOLELY TO OWN ONE PIECE OF REAL PROPERTY WAS SUBJECT TO THE STATUTE OF FRAUDS, THE WRITING REQUIREMENT WAS NOT REMOVED BY PART PERFORMANCE)/STATUTE OF FRAUDS (ORAL OFFER TO SELL SHARES IN FAMILY CORPORATION FORMED SOLELY TO OWN ONE PIECE OF REAL PROPERTY WAS SUBJECT TO THE STATUTE OF FRAUDS, THE WRITING REQUIREMENT WAS NOT REMOVED BY PART PERFORMANCE)/CORPORATION LAW  (ORAL OFFER TO SELL SHARES IN FAMILY CORPORATION FORMED SOLELY TO OWN ONE PIECE OF REAL PROPERTY WAS SUBJECT TO THE STATUTE OF FRAUDS, THE WRITING REQUIREMENT WAS NOT REMOVED BY PART PERFORMANCE)

, , , ,

DIFFERENCES BETWEEN CONTRIBUTION AND INDEMNIFICATION EXPLAINED, PERSONAL TORT LIABILITY OF CORPORATE OFFICERS NOTED.

The Second Department, in a lawsuit stemming from the flooding of plaintiffs’ land, explained the differences between contribution and indemnification and noted that corporate officers may be personally liable for torts committed in their performance of corporate duties:

The plaintiffs commenced this action against the Village of East Hills after they experienced flooding on their property from rainwater. The plaintiffs asserted causes of action sounding in tort, alleging that the flooding resulted from the development of land near their property, which was authorized by the Village. The Village commenced a third-party action seeking indemnification and contribution against A to Z Transit Contracting Corp., the project manager that constructed the plaintiffs’ home, as well as its principal, David Ferdinand, architect Carl Majowka, who prepared plans for the construction of the plaintiffs’ home, and Scott Anderson, the principal of Scott Anderson Design, Inc., which performed landscaping work for the plaintiffs’ home. * * *

“[C]ontribution arises automatically when certain factors are present and [does] not requir[e] any kind of agreement between or among the wrongdoers'” … . ” Indemnity, on the other hand, arises out of a contract which may be express or may be implied in law “to prevent a result which is regarded as unjust or unsatisfactory”‘” … . “Further, “[w]here one is held liable solely on account of the negligence of another, indemnification, not contribution, principles apply to shift the entire liability to the one who was negligent.” . . . Conversely, where a party is held liable at least partially because of its own negligence, contribution against other culpable tort-feasors is the only available remedy'”… . “Whether indemnity or contribution applies depends not upon the parties’ designation but upon a careful analysis of the theory of recovery against each tort-feasor'”       * * *

Although “[c]orporate officers may not be held personally liable on contracts of their corporations, provided they did not purport to bind themselves individually under such contracts” … , “corporate officers may be held personally liable for torts committed in the performance of their corporate duties'” … . Eisman v Village of E. Hills. 2017 NY Slip Op 02775, 2nd Dept 4-12-17

NEGLIGENCE (DIFFERENCES BETWEEN CONTRIBUTION AND INDEMNIFICATION EXPLAINED, PERSONAL TORT LIABILITY OF CORPORATE OFFICERS NOTED)/CONTRACT LAW (DIFFERENCES BETWEEN CONTRIBUTION AND INDEMNIFICATION EXPLAINED, PERSONAL TORT LIABILITY OF CORPORATE OFFICERS NOTED)/CORPORATION LAW  (DIFFERENCES BETWEEN CONTRIBUTION AND INDEMNIFICATION EXPLAINED, PERSONAL TORT LIABILITY OF CORPORATE OFFICERS NOTED)/MUNICIPAL LAW (DIFFERENCES BETWEEN CONTRIBUTION AND INDEMNIFICATION EXPLAINED, PERSONAL TORT LIABILITY OF CORPORATE OFFICERS NOTED)

, ,

INSURER’S FRAUDULENT INCORPORATION DEFENSE TO ITS REFUSAL TO PAY NO-FAULT BENEFITS TO A CORPORATION RUN BY NON-PHYSICIANS WAS PROPERLY PRESENTED TO THE JURY, DEPOSITION TESTIMONY IN WHICH NON-PARTIES INVOKED THE FIFTH AMENDMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN READ TO THE JURY.

The Second Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Duffy, determined defendant insurance company was entitled to the fraudulent incorporation defense in support of its refusal to pay no-fault benefits to plaintiff corporation for MRI’s administered by plaintiff corporation. The Business Corporation Law required that plaintiff corporation be run by physicians. There was substantial evidence the corporation was being run by two non-physicians with a physician as a cover. The Second Department found that the jury instructions explaining the criteria for the fraudulent incorporation defense were proper. The Second Department noted that the deposition testimony in which the two non-physician operators of plaintiff corporation refused to answer questions (invoking the Fifth Amendment) should not have been read to the jury because they were non-party witnesses. However, the error was deemed harmless. With respect to the fraudulent incorporation defense, the court wrote:

​

… [T]he jury charge, read as a whole, adequately conveyed the correct legal principles on “fraudulent incorporation” … . The instructions asked the jury to consider whether, under the totality of the circumstances, the plaintiff was operating as a proper professional medical corporation in compliance with state regulations or whether, in order to obtain money that insurers were otherwise entitled to deny, the plaintiff was organized under the facially valid cover of [a physician] but was, in actuality, operated and controlled by [two non-physicians] to funnel profits to themselves. Carothers v Progressive Ins. Co., 2017 NY Slip Op 02614. 2nd Dept 4-5-17

INSURANCE LAW (INSURER’S FRAUDULENT INCORPORATION DEFENSE TO ITS REFUSAL TO PAY NO-FAULT BENEFITS TO A CORPORATION RUN BY NON-PHYSICIANS WAS PROPERLY PRESENTED TO THE JURY)/CORPORATION LAW (INSURER’S FRAUDULENT INCORPORATION DEFENSE TO ITS REFUSAL TO PAY NO-FAULT BENEFITS TO A CORPORATION RUN BY NON-PHYSICIANS WAS PROPERLY PRESENTED TO THE JURY)/EVIDENCE (DEPOSITION TESTIMONY IN WHICH NON-PARTIES INVOKED THE FIFTH AMENDMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN READ TO THE JURY)/FRAUDULENT INCORPORATION DEFENSE  (INSURER’S FRAUDULENT INCORPORATION DEFENSE TO ITS REFUSAL TO PAY NO-FAULT BENEFITS TO A CORPORATION RUN BY NON-PHYSICIANS WAS PROPERLY PRESENTED TO THE JURY)

, ,

DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT WAS THE ALTER EGO OF PLAINTIFF’S EMPLOYER, DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT DISMISSING THE NEGLIGENCE COMPLAINT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED.

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant did not demonstrate it was the alter ego of plaintiff’s employer (which would trigger the Worker’s Compensation Law as plaintiff’s sole remedy). Defendant’s summary judgment motion on that ground should have been denied. Plaintiff was injured by a defective floor condition where he worked. He sued the owner of the building and the holder of the lease, Clean Rite Cleaners – Flatbush Avenue, LLC:

At the time of the accident, the plaintiff was employed by nonparty CRC-Management Co., LLC (hereinafter CRC-Management), and, after the accident, he sought Workers’ Compensation benefits from CRC-Management. CRC-Flatbush moved, in effect, for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it on the ground that the plaintiff’s causes of action were barred by the exclusive remedy provisions of the Workers’ Compensation Law. Among other things, CRC-Flatbush argued that it was “part of a single integrated entity” along with CRC-Management since they were both subsidiaries of nonparty Clean Rite Centers, LLC. …

… “[A] mere showing that the entities are related is insufficient where a defendant cannot demonstrate that one of the entities controls the day-to-day operations of the other” … . Here, CRC-Flatbush failed to make a prima facie showing either that it and the plaintiff’s employer, CRC-Management, operated as a single integrated entity, or that either company controlled the day-to-day operations of the other … . Moses v B & E Lorge Family Trust, 2017 NY Slip Op 01350, 2nd Dept 2-22-17

 

WORKER’S COMPENSATION LAW (DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT WAS THE ALTER EGO OF PLAINTIFF’S EMPLOYER, DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT DISMISSING THE NEGLIGENCE COMPLAINT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED)/CORPORATION LAW (WORKER’S COMPENSATION LAE, NEGLIGENCE, DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT WAS THE ALTER EGO OF PLAINTIFF’S EMPLOYER, DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT DISMISSING THE NEGLIGENCE COMPLAINT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED)/NEGLIGENCE (WORKER’S COMPENSATION LAW, CORPORATION LAW, DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT WAS THE ALTER EGO OF PLAINTIFF’S EMPLOYER, DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT DISMISSING THE NEGLIGENCE COMPLAINT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED)/ALTER EGO (WORKER’S COMPENSATION LAW, CORPORATION LAW, DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT WAS THE ALTER EGO OF PLAINTIFF’S EMPLOYER, DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT DISMISSING THE NEGLIGENCE COMPLAINT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED)

NONMONETARY SETTLEMENT OF A SHAREHOLDERS’ CLASS ACTION SUIT APPROVED, NEW ANALYTICAL CRITERIA ANNOUNCED.

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Kahn, with a concurring opinion, reversing Supreme Court, determined a nonmonetary settlement of a shareholders’ class action suit should have been approved. The matter was sent back to determine appropriate attorneys’ fees. The opinion is too comprehensive to fairly summarize here. The court revisited the factors to be considered in analyzing nonmonetary settlements, adding two new factors to those announced in Woodrow v Colt Industries in 1990. This action involved the propriety of the purchase of Verizon Wireless by Verizon Communications:

The rise of nonmonetary class action settlements began in the 1980s and continued into the 1990s, when complaints of corporate misconduct in the context of mergers and acquisitions prompted calls for corporate governance reforms. Often, the perceived need for reform led to the commencement of litigation as a means to address the misfeasance, which would result in settlements with provisions for corporate governance reform or other forms of equitable relief, such as additional disclosures to shareholders in proxy statements, and would be accompanied by an award of reasonable attorneys’ fees to shareholders’ counsel. * * *

In the ensuing decades, however, the use of nonmonetary settlements became increasingly disfavored. Complaints arose that the remedies of “disclosure-only” and other forms of non-monetary settlements themselves proved problematic because they provided minimal benefits either to shareholders or to their corporations. Both courts and commentators came to view the shareholder class action in this context as a “merger tax” and as a cottage industry for the plaintiffs’ class action bar, used to force settlements of nonmeritorious suits and to generate exorbitant attorneys’ fees, causing waste and abuse to the corporation and its shareholders. * * *

… [W]e now refine our Colt standard of review to add to the five established factors to be used by courts to ensure appropriate evaluation of proposed nonmonetary settlements of class action suits these two additional criteria: whether the proposed settlement is in the best interests of the putative settlement class as a whole, and whether the settlement is in the best interest of the corporation. Gordon v Verizon Communications, Inc., 2017 NY Slip Op 00742, 1st Dept 2-2-17

 

CORPORATION LAW (NONMONETARY SETTLEMENT OF A SHAREHOLDERS’ CLASS ACTION SUIT APPROVED, NEW ANALYTICAL CRITERIA ANNOUNCED)/SHAREHOLDERS’ CLASS ACTIONS (NONMONETARY SETTLEMENT OF A SHAREHOLDERS’ CLASS ACTION SUIT APPROVED, NEW ANALYTICAL CRITERIA ANNOUNCED)/CLASS ACTIONS (SHAREHOLDERS, NONMONETARY SETTLEMENT OF A SHAREHOLDERS’ CLASS ACTION SUIT APPROVED, NEW ANALYTICAL CRITERIA ANNOUNCED)/NONMONETARY SETTLEMENTS (SHAREHOLDERS’ CLASS ACTIONS, NONMONETARY SETTLEMENT OF A SHAREHOLDERS’ CLASS ACTION SUIT APPROVED, NEW ANALYTICAL CRITERIA ANNOUNCED)

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy