Corporation Law – Page 9 – New York Appellate Digest

Appeals, Attorneys, Contract Law, Corporation Law, Fiduciary Duty, Limited Liability Company Law

NO APPEAL LIES FROM A NONFINAL ORDER, HERE ORDERS WHICH DID NOT RESOLVE THE AWARD OF ATTORNEY’S FEES; IN A SUCCESSFUL SHAREHOLDERS’ DERIVATIVE ACTION ATTORNEY’S FEES ARE PAID BY THE CORPORATION (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department determined no appeal lies from a nonfinal order and, in a successful shareholders’ derivative action, the corporation is liable for attorney’s fees. The facts of the case are too complex to fairly summarize here. Defendant limited liability company was formed to develop a residential subdivision. The action alleged breach of contract and breach of fiduciary duty and sought dissolution of the LLC:

… “[A]lthough all of the substantive issues between the parties were resolved, the order was facially nonfinal, since it left pending the assessment of attorneys’ fees—a matter that plainly required further judicial action of a nonministerial nature” … . Further, plaintiffs’ “request for attorneys’ fees was an integral part of each of the asserted causes of action rather than a separate cause of action of its own,” and therefore that issue cannot be implicitly severed from the other issues … . Thus, the order … does not constitute a ” final order’ ” within the meaning of CPLR 5501 (a) (1) and does not bring up for our review any prior non-final order … . * * *

… [W]e agree with defendant that the court erred in determining that plaintiff is entitled to attorneys’ fees and disbursements in his status as a derivative plaintiff acting on the LLC’s behalf and in awarding such fees and disbursements … . “The basis for an award of attorneys’ fees in a shareholders’ derivative suit is to reimburse the plaintiff for expenses incurred on the corporation’s behalf . . . . Those costs should be paid by the corporation, which has benefited from the plaintiff’s efforts and which would have borne the costs had it sued in its own right” … . Thus, plaintiff’s success as a derivative plaintiff is not an acceptable basis for an award of attorneys’ fees and disbursements against defendant individually. Howard v Pooler, 2020 NY Slip Op 03347, Fourth Dept 6-12-20

June 12, 2020

Appeals, Civil Procedure, Corporation Law, Judges

ACCOUNTING CAUSE OF ACTION IN THIS SHAREHOLDERS’ DERIVATIVE SUIT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED; ALTHOUGH SUA SPONTE ORDERS ARE NOT APPEALABLE, THE APPEAL WAS HEARD IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE; PROPER WAY TO HANDLE A SUA SPONTE ORDER IS TO MOVE TO VACATE AND THEN APPEAL (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court in this shareholders’ derivative action against a low-income Housing Development Fund Corporation (HDFC), determined: (1) although a sua sponte order is not appealable, the appeal of the dismissal of the cause of action for an accounting is heard in the interest of justice; (2) the proper way to handle a sua sponte order is to move to vacate it and then appeal; (3) there was no need to amend the complaint because the accounting cause of action included the right to damages for wrongdoing (here the alleged failure to account for the sale of an apartment for $90,000):

An order issued sua sponte is not appealable as of right (see CPLR 5701[a][2] …). Plaintiffs’ remedy is to move to vacate the court’s order, and, if the motion is denied, appeal from that order (CPLR 5701[a][3] …). …

… [W]e find that Supreme Court erred in dismissing the complaint because the cause of action for an equitable accounting was not moot. Supreme Court conflated the first cause of action for the inspection of the HDFC’s books and records with the second cause of action for an equitable accounting … . Defendants failed to demonstrate what happened to the $90,000 from the sale of Apartment 6A, and the funds do not appear in the HDFC’s financials. Defendants’ affidavits did not address this glaring deficiency.

… An equitable accounting involves a remedy “designed to require a person in possession of financial records to produce them, demonstrate how money was expended and return pilfered funds in his or her possession” … . Available relief includes a personal judgment against the wrongdoer … . Hall v Louis, 2020 NY Slip Op 03268, First Dept 6-11-20

June 11, 2020

Civil Procedure, Corporation Law, Tax Law

THE DOCTRINE OF ‘TAX ESTOPPEL’ PROHIBITED DEFENDANT FROM TAKING A POSITION ON OWNERSHIP OF A CORPORATION WHICH IS CONTRARY TO STATEMENTS MADE IN CORPORATE TAX RETURNS (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court and clarifying a prior ruling. determined the doctrine of “tax estoppel” applied to preclude defendant Elayan from taking a position contrary to the factual statements in corporate tax returns re: an ownership interest in the corporation, Edgewater:

The court improvidently exercised its discretion in failing to apply the doctrine of “tax estoppel.” Under that doctrine, defendants’ acts in filing corporate tax returns for the years 2010 through 2014, signed by defendant Elayan, which contained factual statements that plaintiff Jaber had a 75% ownership interest in Edgewater during that time period, and precludes defendants from taking a position contrary to that in this litigation … . To the extent our decision in Matter of Bhanji v Baluch (99 AD3d 587 [1st Dept 2012]) has been interpreted as making the doctrine generally inapplicable with respect to factual statements of ownership in tax returns, we clarify that the doctrine applies where, as here, the party seeking to contradict the factual statements as to ownership in the tax returns signed the tax returns, and has failed to assert any basis for not crediting the statements … . PH-105 Realty Corp v Elayaan, 2020 NY Slip Op 02971, First Dept 5-21-20

May 21, 2020

Bankruptcy, Contract Law, Corporation Law, Insurance Law

THE BANKRUPTCY EXCEPTION TO THE INSURED VS INSURED EXCLUSION IN THE DIRECTORS AND OFFICERS LIABILITY POLICY APPLIED TO THE CREDITOR TRUST WHICH WAS SET UP TO PURSUE THE BANKRUPTCY ESTATE’S LEGAL CLAIMS ON BEHALF OF UNSECURED CREDITORS; THE CREDIT TRUST SUED THE DIRECTORS AND OFFICERS OF THE INSURED ALLEGING BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Renwick, in a matter of first impression, determined that the bankruptcy exception to the insured vs. insured exclusion of a Directors and Officers (D & O) liability insurance policy applied to a Creditor Trust. The Creditor Trust was formed pursuant to a Chapter 11 bankruptcy reorganization plan for the insured, RCS Capital Corporation (RCAP), to pursue the bankruptcy estate’s legal claims on behalf of unsecured creditors of the insured:

… [T]he Creditor Trust sued RCAP’s directors and officers alleging they had breached their fiduciary duties to the company. The directors and officers sought coverage under RCAP’s D & O liability policy with Westchester (the insurer). Westchester commenced this action in response, seeking a declaratory judgment that it has no coverage obligations.

This appeal raises an issue of apparent first impression of whether a D & O liability policy’s bankruptcy exception, which allows claims asserted by the “bankruptcy trustee” or “comparable authority,” applies to claims raised by a Creditor Trust, as a post-confirmation litigation trust, to restore D & O coverage removed by the insured vs. insured exclusion. For the reasons that follow, we find that the bankruptcy exception, to the insured vs. insured exclusion, applies to restore coverage. Specifically, we interpret the broad language “comparable authority” to encompass a Creditor Trust that functions as a post-confirmation litigation trust, given that such a Creditor Trust is an authority comparable to a “bankruptcy trustee” or other bankruptcy-related or “comparable authority” listed in the bankruptcy exception. Westchester Fire Ins. Co. v Schorsch, 2020 NY Slip Op 02895, First Dept 5-14-20

May 14, 2020

Cooperatives, Corporation Law, Fiduciary Duty

A CORPORATION DOES NOT OWE A FIDUCIARY DUTY TO ITS MEMBERS OR SHAREHOLDERS (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, dismissing the complaint, noted that the breach-of-a-fiduciary-duty action was brought solely against the corporation, which does not owe its members or shareholders a fiduciary duty:

“[I]t is well settled that a corporation does not owe fiduciary duties to its members or shareholders” … . Here, while the complaint alleges that defendant’s board of directors breached its fiduciary duty to plaintiff in refusing to approve the sale of certain units in the cooperative market to plaintiff, plaintiff brought this action solely against the cooperative corporation and thus, the complaint is dismissed. C & J Bros., Inc. v Hunts Point Term. Produce Coop. Assn., Inc., 2020 NY Slip Op 01454, First Dept 3-3-20

March 3, 2020

Corporation Law

THERE WAS A DE FACTO MERGER SUCH THAT THE SUCCESSOR CORPORATION WAS LIABLE FOR THE TORTS OF ITS PREDECESSOR; THE CORPORATE VEIL WAS PROPERLY PIERCED TO FIND THE OWNER OF THE CORPORATION LIABLE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined Supreme Court properly found there was a de factor merger such that the successor corporation is liable for the torts of its predecessor, and further found that Supreme Court properly found the owner of the corporation was personally liable for damages awarded against the corporation. The facts are too complex to fairly summarize here:

“Generally, a corporation which acquires the assets of another is not liable for the torts of its predecessor'” … . “However, such liability may arise if the successor corporation expressly or impliedly assumed the predecessor’s tort liability, there was a consolidation or merger of seller and purchaser, the purchaser corporation was a mere continuation of the seller corporation, or the transaction was entered into fraudulently to escape such obligations” … . Accordingly, “[a] transaction structured as a purchase of assets may be deemed to fall within this exception as a de facto merger” … .

“The hallmarks of a de facto merger are the continuity of ownership; cessation of ordinary business and dissolution of the [predecessor] as soon as possible; assumption by the successor of the liabilities ordinarily necessary for the uninterrupted continuation of the business of the acquired corporation; and, continuity of management, personnel, physical location, assets, and general business operation'” … . Where the acquired corporation is “shorn of its assets” and becomes a “shell,” legal dissolution is not required to support a finding of de facto merger … . “[I]n non-tort actions, continuity of ownership is the essence of a merger'” … . * * *

[Re: piercing the corporate veil:] It is the plaintiff’s burden to demonstrate ” that the corporation was dominated as to the transaction attacked and that such domination was the instrument of fraud or otherwise resulted in wrongful or inequitable consequences'” … . Factors to be considered in determining whether the owner has abused the privilege of doing business in the corporate form include whether there was a failure to adhere to corporate formalities, inadequate capitalization, commingling of assets, and use of corporate funds for personal use” … . Bonanni v Horizons Invs. Corp., 2020 NY Slip Op 00563, Second Dept 1-29-20

January 29, 2020

Civil Procedure, Corporation Law, Employment Law, Labor Law

PLAINTIFF STATED A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR VIOLATION OF LABOR LAW 196-d AGAINST A CORPORATE OFFICER AND A SHAREHOLDER INDIVIDUALLY FOR FAILING TO REMIT SERVICE CHARGES AND GRATUITIES TO THEIR WAITSTAFF EMPLOYEES; REQUEST FOR AN EXTENSION TO SEEK CLASS CERTIFICATION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED; MOTION TO AMEND THE COMPLAINT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED; PLAINTIFF’S DISCOVERY DEMANDS WERE PALPABLY IMPROPER (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined: (1) plaintiff banquet server had stated a cause of action against the Cortses (an officer and a shareholder in the corporation, Falkirk Management, sued by plaintiff) individually alleging the Cortses were plaintiff’s employers within the meaning of Labor Law 196-d and did not remit service charges and gratuities to the waitstaff; (2) corporate shareholders and officers like the Cortes can be liable for corporate violations of the Labor Law; plaintiff’s discovery demands were burdensome or immaterial and therefore improper (CPLR 3101(a)); (3) plaintiff’s request for an extension to move for class certification should have been granted (CPLR 901(a); 902); and (4) plaintiff’s motion to amend the complaint should have been granted:

… [T]he complaint alleged that the Cortses exercised control over the “day-to-day operations” of “[the Country Club],” including “authority regarding the pay practices” of Falkirk Management. * * *

… [T]he information sought by the plaintiff in her first set of interrogatories and first request for the production of documents was largely burdensome or immaterial, and consequently, palpably improper … . * * *

A plaintiff’s need to conduct pre-class certification discovery to determine whether the prerequisites of a class action set forth in CPLR 901(a) can be satisfied constitutes good cause for the extension of the 60-day time period fixed by CPLR 902 … . * * *

[Re: the motion to amend the complaint:] the defendants alleged no surprise or prejudice … . Moreover, the proposed amendments are not palpably insufficient or patently devoid of merit … . Lomeli v Falkirk Mgt. Corp., 2020 NY Slip Op 00115, Second Dept 1-8-20

January 8, 2020

Corporation Law, Environmental Law, Limited Liability Company Law

MEMBER OF LLC WHICH OWNED A MOBILE HOME PARK IS PERSONALLY LIABLE, PURSUANT TO THE RESPONSIBLE CORPORATE OFFICER DOCTRINE, FOR AN $800,000 PENALTY IMPOSED FOR FAILING TO COMPLY WITH AN ORDER ISSUED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION REQUIRING SEWAGE-TREATMENT MEASURES (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined Burr, one of two members of a limited liability company, C & J, was properly held personally liable for the violation of an administrative order issued by the Department of Environmental Conservation (DEP). C & J owned a mobile home park and the administrative order concerned the treatment of waste from the park. The penalty was more than $800,000.00:

Under Limited Liability Company Law § 609, a member of a limited liability company is generally not liable for the contractual obligations of the company. The 2008 order on consent, however, is not merely a contractual obligation. It is also an administrative order, the violation of which is subject to statutory enforcement (see ECL 71-1929). This Court has recognized that a responsible corporate officer may be held personally liable for violations of consent orders issued by DEC that implicate public health and safety … . Individual liability may be imposed where the corporate officer has the knowledge of and ability to prevent or remedy a violation that presents a public health hazard … . …

There can be little dispute that Burr was well aware of the ongoing sewage violations at the park, and, as managing member, he held a position of authority to address the problem. … [T]he 2008 consent order, which Burr signed on C & J’s behalf, expressly provided for stipulated penalties in the event that C & J “fail[ed] to strictly and timely comply.” The order further specified that it was binding on C & J and its officers. …

… [W]e conclude that Supreme Court did not err in holding Burr personally liable under the responsible corporate officer doctrine. State of New York v C & J Enters., LLC, 2020 NY Slip Op 00024, Third Dept 1-2-20

January 2, 2020

Corporation Law, Landlord-Tenant, Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law (RPAPL)

CORPORATE OFFICER MAY BE PERSONALLY LIABLE FOR WRONGFUL EVICTION PURSUANT TO REAL PROPERTY ACTIONS AND PROCEEDINGS LAW (RPAPL) 853 (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that the landlord’s (Huntress’s) motion for summary judgment dismissing the tenant’s (Kingsbury’s) action for wrongful eviction (RPAPL 853) should not have been granted:

The sole contention raised by Huntress in support of his motion with respect to the first cross claim was that he could not be personally liable inasmuch as he was acting as an agent of a disclosed principal. We conclude that Huntress failed to establish his entitlement to judgment as a matter of law with respect to that cross claim and, as a result, the burden never shifted to Kingsbury to raise a triable issue of fact … .

“It is well established that [a] corporate officer may be held personally liable for a tort of the corporation if he or she committed or participated in its commission, whether or not his or her acts are also by or for the corporation’ ” … . A cause of action under RPAPL 853 sounds in tort … . Here, Huntress failed to establish that he did not participate in the eviction of Kingsbury, and he therefore failed to establish as a matter of law that he cannot be held personally liable if the eviction violated RPAPL 853 … . Canandaigua Natl. Bank & Trust Co. v Acquest S. Park, LLC, 2019 NY Slip Op 09130, Fourth Dept 12-20-19

December 20, 2019

Contract Law, Corporation Law, Real Estate

THE DEMAND FOR THE RETURN OF THE DEPOSIT UNDER A REAL ESTATE PURCHASE CONTRACT WAS AN ANTICIPATORY BREACH OF THE CONTRACT AND PLAINTIFF WAS ENTITLED TO KEEP THE DEPOSIT AS LIQUIDATED DAMAGES (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined defendant’s demand for the return of its deposit in a real estate transaction was an anticipatory breach of the purchase agreement entitling plaintiff to retain the deposit as liquidated damages. Plaintiff, Lamarche Food, had represented that it was a New York corporation authorized to do business in New York. The corporation had been dissolved in 1992. For that reason defendant claimed plaintiff had breached the contract and demanded the return of the deposit. However, pursuant to Business Corporation Law 1006, a dissolved corporation may continue to function for the purpose of winding up affairs. Apparently defendant acknowledged the “winding up affairs” issue and argued only that its demand for a return of the deposit was not an anticipatory breach:

By letter dated June 23, 2017, a new attorney for the defendant informed the plaintiffs’ attorney that Lamarche Food had defaulted on its obligations under the contract of sale inasmuch as it had represented therein that it was a New York corporation authorized to carry on its business in New York, with all the power and authority to enter into and perform the contract, and yet Lamarche Food was dissolved on June 24, 1992, and, therefore, was not a registered corporation in New York capable of engaging in new business. The defendant’s attorney further stated that in light of the breach, the defendant demanded a refund of its deposit within 10 days. * * *

On appeal, the defendant does not dispute that Lamarche Food could continue to function for the purpose of selling the subject property as part of its winding up of the corporation’s affairs. Rather, the defendant contends that its June 23, 2017, letter to the plaintiffs’ attorney did not constitute an anticipatory breach of the contract of sale. “An anticipatory breach of contract by a promisor is a repudiation of [a] contractual duty before the time fixed in the contract for . . . performance has arrived” … . “For an anticipatory repudiation to be deemed to have occurred, the expression of intent not to perform by the repudiator must be positive and unequivocal'” … . We agree with the Supreme Court’s determination that the June 23, 2017, letter reflected a positive and unequivocal repudiation of the contract by the defendant … , thereby, under the terms of the contract, entitling the plaintiffs to retain the deposit as liquidated damages for the defendant’s anticipatory breach. Lamarche Food Prods. Corp. v 438 Union, LLC, 2019 NY Slip Op 08995, Second Dept 12-18-19

December 18, 2019