Fiduciary Duty – Page 7 – New York Appellate Digest

AN ACTION AGAINST A NOT FOR PROFIT CORPORATION FOR BREACH OF A FIDUCIARY DUTY MUST ALLEGE THE FAILURE TO ACT IN GOOD FAITH ON BEHALF OF THE CORPORATION OR ITS MEMBERS, NOT, AS HERE, THE FAILURE TO ACT IN A MEMBER’S PERSONAL BEST INTEREST (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department noted that an action against a not for profit corporation (here a yacht club) for breach of a fiduciary duty must allege the failure to act in good faith on behalf of the corporation or its members, not the failure to act in good faith in a member’s (plaintiff’s) personal best interest. The board had excluded plaintiff’s domestic partner, who was not a member, from the club:

The elements of a cause of action to recover damages for breach of fiduciary duty are (1) the existence of a fiduciary relationship, (2) misconduct by the defendant, and (3) damages directly caused by the defendant’s misconduct … . The directors of a not-for-profit corporation like the Club “have the fiduciary obligation to act on behalf of the corporation in good faith and with reasonable care so as to protect and advance its interests” … . Here, however, the complaint did not allege that the Club defendants failed to act in good faith on behalf of the Club or its members’ collective interests, but merely alleged that they failed to act in [plaintiff’s] personal best interest … . Accordingly, the complaint did not state a cause of action to recover damages for breach of fiduciary duty. Nachbar v Cornwall Yacht Club, 2018 NY Slip Op 02795, Second Dept 4-25-18

CORPORATION LAW (AN ACTION AGAINST A NOT FOR PROFIT CORPORATION FOR BREACH OF A FIDUCIARY DUTY MUST ALLEGE THE FAILURE TO ACT IN GOOD FAITH ON BEHALF OF THE CORPORATION OR ITS MEMBERS, NOT, AS HERE, THE FAILURE TO ACT IN A MEMBER’S PERSONAL BEST INTEREST (SECOND DEPT))/NOT FOR PROFIT CORPORATION (AN ACTION AGAINST A NOT FOR PROFIT CORPORATION FOR BREACH OF A FIDUCIARY DUTY MUST ALLEGE THE FAILURE TO ACT IN GOOD FAITH ON BEHALF OF THE CORPORATION OR ITS MEMBERS, NOT, AS HERE, THE FAILURE TO ACT IN A MEMBER’S PERSONAL BEST INTEREST (SECOND DEPT))/YACHT CLUB (CORPORATION LAW, AN ACTION AGAINST A NOT FOR PROFIT CORPORATION FOR BREACH OF A FIDUCIARY DUTY MUST ALLEGE THE FAILURE TO ACT IN GOOD FAITH ON BEHALF OF THE CORPORATION OR ITS MEMBERS, NOT, AS HERE, THE FAILURE TO ACT IN A MEMBER’S PERSONAL BEST INTEREST (SECOND DEPT)/FIDUCIARY DUTY (CORPORATION LAW, AN ACTION AGAINST A NOT FOR PROFIT CORPORATION FOR BREACH OF A FIDUCIARY DUTY MUST ALLEGE THE FAILURE TO ACT IN GOOD FAITH ON BEHALF OF THE CORPORATION OR ITS MEMBERS, NOT, AS HERE, THE FAILURE TO ACT IN A MEMBER’S PERSONAL BEST INTEREST (SECOND DEPT))

April 25, 2018

Contract Law, Fiduciary Duty, Fraud

FORUM SELECTION CLAUSE APPLIES TO NONSIGNATORY ATTORNEY BASED UPON ATTORNEY’S RELATIONSHIP WITH THE PARTIES, PARTIES’ FAILURE TO CAREFULLY READ THE AGREEMENTS BLAMED ON ATTORNEY’S FRAUDULENT ASSURANCES, FRAUD, FRAUD IN THE INDUCEMENT, BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY AND BREACH OF CONTRACT ALLEGATIONS AGAINST ATTORNEY STATED CAUSES OF ACTION (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined the defendants’ counterclaims against their attorney, David, stated causes of action for fraud, fraud in the inducement, breach of fiduciary duty and breach of contract. Defendants alleged that David’s assurances led defendants to sign joint venture agreements to their detriment without carefully reading them. The court noted that, although David was not a signatory to the agreements, the forum selection clauses applied to him because of his relationship with the defendants, as expressed in an email:

The allegations of the complaint state a cause of action for fraudulent inducement … . The well settled principle relied on by David that a party claiming fraudulent inducement cannot be said to have justifiably relied on a representation negated by the plain terms of the contract they signed does not apply here, since his alleged assurances and fraud were the very cause of defendants’ failure to review the documents carefully. As it was reasonable for defendants to rely on the advice of counsel, we also reject David’s arguments premised on the plain language of the agreements that defendants admit they did not read carefully.

Defendants’ allegations describing their attorney-client relationship with David state a cause of action for breach of fiduciary duty. For example, they allege that he served as their attorney for years, both before and during the instant transaction, negotiating unrelated contracts and handling unrelated lawsuits and trusts and estates matters.

While in support of the fraudulent inducement claim defendants allege that the agreements were “brought about by fraud,” because, inter alia, David held himself out as their attorney and caused them to sign unfavorable agreements that he drafted, in contrast, in support of the fraud claim defendants focus on events following the execution of the agreements, namely, David’s “scheme to manufacture a bogus default” of the loan so as to seize valuable collateral without paying for it. These allegations state a cause of action for fraud … . Suttongate Holdings Ltd. v Laconm Mgt. N.V., 2018 NY Slip Op 02424, First Dept 4-10-18

FRAUD (FORUM SELECTION CLAUSE APPLIES TO NONSIGNATORY ATTORNEY BASED UPON ATTORNEY’S RELATIONSHIP WITH THE PARTIES, PARTIES’ FAILURE TO CAREFULLY READ THE AGREEMENTS BLAMED ON ATTORNEY’S FRAUDULENT ASSURANCES, FRAUD, FRAUD IN THE INDUCEMENT, BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY AND BREACH OF CONTRACT ALLEGATIONS AGAINST ATTORNEY STATED CAUSES OF ACTION (FIRST DEPT))/CONTRACT LAW (FORUM SELECTION CLAUSE APPLIES TO NONSIGNATORY ATTORNEY BASED UPON ATTORNEY’S RELATIONSHIP WITH THE PARTIES, PARTIES’ FAILURE TO CAREFULLY READ THE AGREEMENTS BLAMED ON ATTORNEY’S FRAUDULENT ASSURANCES, FRAUD, FRAUD IN THE INDUCEMENT, BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY AND BREACH OF CONTRACT ALLEGATIONS AGAINST ATTORNEY STATED CAUSES OF ACTION (FIRST DEPT))/FORUM SELECTION CLAUSE (FORUM SELECTION CLAUSE APPLIES TO NONSIGNATORY ATTORNEY BASED UPON ATTORNEY’S RELATIONSHIP WITH THE PARTIES, PARTIES’ FAILURE TO CAREFULLY READ THE AGREEMENTS BLAMED ON ATTORNEY’S FRAUDULENT ASSURANCES, FRAUD, FRAUD IN THE INDUCEMENT, BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY AND BREACH OF CONTRACT ALLEGATIONS AGAINST ATTORNEY STATED CAUSES OF ACTION (FIRST DEPT))/ATTORNEYS (FORUM SELECTION CLAUSE APPLIES TO NONSIGNATORY ATTORNEY BASED UPON ATTORNEY’S RELATIONSHIP WITH THE PARTIES, PARTIES’ FAILURE TO CAREFULLY READ THE AGREEMENTS BLAMED ON ATTORNEY’S FRAUDULENT ASSURANCES, FRAUD, FRAUD IN THE INDUCEMENT, BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY AND BREACH OF CONTRACT ALLEGATIONS AGAINST ATTORNEY STATED CAUSES OF ACTION (FIRST DEPT))/FIDUCIARY DUTY, BREACH OF (ATTORNEYS, FORUM SELECTION CLAUSE APPLIES TO NONSIGNATORY ATTORNEY BASED UPON ATTORNEY’S RELATIONSHIP WITH THE PARTIES, PARTIES’ FAILURE TO CAREFULLY READ THE AGREEMENTS BLAMED ON ATTORNEY’S FRAUDULENT ASSURANCES, FRAUD, FRAUD IN THE INDUCEMENT, BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY AND BREACH OF CONTRACT ALLEGATIONS AGAINST ATTORNEY STATED CAUSES OF ACTION (FIRST DEPT))

April 10, 2018

Corporation Law, Fiduciary Duty

ALTHOUGH THE COMPLAINT BY SHAREHOLDERS AGAINST DIRECTORS DID NOT SUFFICIENTLY ALLEGE THE BREACH OF A FIDUCIARY DUTY, IT DID ALLEGE A BREACH OF THE SUFFICIENT INFORMATION DUTY (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, modifying Supreme Court, determined that, although it did not sufficiently allege the breach of a fiduciary duty, the complaint by shareholders alleged the breach of the “sufficient information duty” owed to shareholders by the directors:

The complaint … fails to allege “a special factual relationship between the directors and the shareholders … bring[ing] the directors of the company into direct and close contact with the shareholders in a manner capable of generating fiduciary obligations” with regard to either the dividend policy that is the subject of the third cause of action or the merger transaction that is the subject of the fourth cause of action … .

However, to the extent the director defendants gave shareholders an information statement providing information and recommendations about the merger transaction, they owed the shareholders a “sufficient information duty” … . This is not a duty of loyalty, which would require the directors to subordinate their interests to the shareholders’ interests, but “if [the directors] are going to invite the shareholders to a meeting, common fairness requires that they explain what the purpose of the meeting is” in a “clear and comprehensible” manner … .

The complaint alleges that the information statement failed to disclose that two directors on the special committee negotiating merger terms had ties to the investor defendants, who proposed the merger, that it failed to disclose any details about the search for alternate proposals, which was illusory, that it failed to provide a meaningful valuation of ordinary shares using industry standards for the insurance business, and that it failed to disclose the impact on the stock value of a parallel bond transaction. Moreover, the complaint alleges that, while the information statement warned that the investor defendants could wipe out the ordinary shareholders by redeeming their convertible cumulative preferred participating shares, it misrepresented the likelihood of that occurrence. Davis v Scottish Re Group Ltd., 2018 NY Slip Op 01867, First Dept 3-20-18

CORPORATION LAW (ALTHOUGH THE COMPLAINT BY SHAREHOLDERS AGAINST DIRECTORS DID NOT SUFFICIENTLY ALLEGE THE BREACH OF A FIDUCIARY DUTY, IT DID ALLEGE A BREACH OF THE SUFFICIENT INFORMATION DUTY (FIRST DEPT))/SHAREHOLDERS (CORPORATION LAW, ALTHOUGH THE COMPLAINT BY SHAREHOLDERS AGAINST DIRECTORS DID NOT SUFFICIENTLY ALLEGE THE BREACH OF A FIDUCIARY DUTY, IT DID ALLEGE A BREACH OF THE SUFFICIENT INFORMATION DUTY (FIRST DEPT))/DIRECTORS (CORPORATION LAW, ALTHOUGH THE COMPLAINT BY SHAREHOLDERS AGAINST DIRECTORS DID NOT SUFFICIENTLY ALLEGE THE BREACH OF A FIDUCIARY DUTY, IT DID ALLEGE A BREACH OF THE SUFFICIENT INFORMATION DUTY (FIRST DEPT))/SUFFICIENT INFORMATION DUTY (CORPORATION LAW, ALTHOUGH THE COMPLAINT BY SHAREHOLDERS AGAINST DIRECTORS DID NOT SUFFICIENTLY ALLEGE THE BREACH OF A FIDUCIARY DUTY, IT DID ALLEGE A BREACH OF THE SUFFICIENT INFORMATION DUTY (FIRST DEPT))

March 20, 2018

Fiduciary Duty, Insurance Law

ALL RISK ARTWORK INSURANCE DID NOT COVER DEFECTIVE TITLE, ALLEGATIONS DID NOT DEMONSTRATE A FIDUCIARY RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN INSURED AND BROKERS (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined an all-risk artwork insurance policy did not cover contractual liability to purchasers of stolen art which was returned to the owner. In addition, the court determined the allegations in the complaint against the insurance brokers were insufficient to allege a fiduciary relationship:

“[D]efective title is clearly not a physical loss or damage . . . from any external cause” … . Despite the fact that the phrase “loss or damage” in the policy was not qualified by terms such as “direct” or “physical,” “[w]e may not, under the guise of strict construction, rewrite a policy to bind the insurer to a risk that it did not contemplate and for which it has not been paid” … . “Title insurance has been regarded as a separate type of contract not falling within any of the three basic classes of insurance. . . . It is not reasonable to interpret a policy so broadly that it becomes another type of policy altogether” … . …

The … causes of action, against the insurance broker defendants, were properly dismissed, with leave to replead … for a “special relationship” with the broker defendants … . “Although the parties’ relationship lasted a considerable period of time and defendant [broker] assured plaintiff that his insurance needs were being met, these circumstances are not so exceptional as to support imposition of a fiduciary duty upon defendant”… . A longstanding relationship alone is insufficient to establish a special relationship between plaintiff and the broker defendants. Dae Assoc., LLC v AXA Art Ins. Corp., 2018 NY Slip Op 01026, First Dept 2-13-18

INSURANCE LAW (ALL RISK ARTWORK INSURANCE DID NOT COVER DEFECTIVE TITLE, ALLEGATIONS DID NOT DEMONSTRATE A FIDUCIARY RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN INSURED AND BROKERS (FIRST DEPT))/ARTWORK, STOLEN (INSURANCE LAW, STOLEN ARTWORK, ALL RISK ARTWORK INSURANCE DID NOT COVER DEFECTIVE TITLE, ALLEGATIONS DID NOT DEMONSTRATE A FIDUCIARY RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN INSURED AND BROKERS (FIRST DEPT))/BROKERS (INSURANCE LAW, ALL RISK ARTWORK INSURANCE DID NOT COVER DEFECTIVE TITLE, ALLEGATIONS DID NOT DEMONSTRATE A FIDUCIARY RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN INSURED AND BROKERS (FIRST DEPT))/FIDUCIARY DUTY (INSURANCE LAW, BROKERS, ALL RISK ARTWORK INSURANCE DID NOT COVER DEFECTIVE TITLE, ALLEGATIONS DID NOT DEMONSTRATE A FIDUCIARY RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN INSURED AND BROKERS (FIRST DEPT))/TITLE (INSURANCE LAW, STOLEN ARTWORK, ALL RISK ARTWORK INSURANCE DID NOT COVER DEFECTIVE TITLE, ALLEGATIONS DID NOT DEMONSTRATE A FIDUCIARY RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN INSURED AND BROKERS (FIRST DEPT))/SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP (INSURANCE LAW, BROKERS, ALL RISK ARTWORK INSURANCE DID NOT COVER DEFECTIVE TITLE, ALLEGATIONS DID NOT DEMONSTRATE A FIDUCIARY RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN INSURED AND BROKERS (FIRST DEPT))

February 13, 2018

Accountant Malpractice, Attorneys, Employment Law, Fiduciary Duty

SEEKING ATTORNEY’S FEES FOR THE CLASS ACTION PURSUANT TO THE FEDERAL FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT (FLSA) CONSTITUTED SEEKING INDEMNIFICATION WHICH IS PROHIBITED BY THE ACT, THE BREACH OF CONTRACT ACTION IS NOT DUPLICATIVE OF THE ACCOUNTANT MALPRACTICE ACTION (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, modifying Supreme Court, determined the request for attorney’s fees in this accountant malpractice action constituted a request for indemnification which was prohibited by the Federal Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Plaintiffs alleged they hired defendant-accountants to make sure plaintiffs were in compliance with overtime compensation and wage notice requirements of the FLSA. Plaintiffs were subsequently sued on related claims and sought recover of the attorney’s fees expended to settle the suit. The Fourth Department noted that the breach of contract action was not the same as the accountant malpractice action, but that the negligence and breach of fiduciary duty actions were duplicative of the breach of contract action:

It is well established that “there is no right of contribution or indemnity for employers found liable under the FLSA” … , and the FLSA preempts any conflicting provisions of state labor laws, including those of New York … . A party may not avoid this bar on indemnity by seeking indemnification damages through other legal theories … . In view of the foregoing, we agree with defendants that seeking attorneys’ fees associated with that underlying class action is a request for indemnity … . * * *

.. .[w]e reject defendants’ contention that the breach of contract cause of action is duplicative of the accounting malpractice cause of action. The breach of contract cause of action is based on allegations that defendants breached their agreements with plaintiffs by failing to perform certain services, and that plaintiffs are entitled to recover all compensation paid to defendants for those unperformed services. That is separate and distinct from the allegations in the accounting malpractice cause of action, which seeks damages based on allegations that defendants did perform services pursuant to the contract but failed to comply with the accepted standards of care. Delphi Healthcare PLLC v Petrella Phillips LLP, 2018 NY Slip Op 01012, Fourth Dept 2-9-18

NEGLIGENCE (ACCOUNTANT MALPRACTICE, SEEKING ATTORNEY’S FEES FOR THE CLASS ACTION PURSUANT TO THE FEDERAL FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT (FLSA) CONSTITUTED SEEKING INDEMNIFICATION WHICH IS PROHIBITED BY THE ACT, THE BREACH OF CONTRACT ACTION IS NOT DUPLICATIVE OF THE ACCOUNTANT MALPRACTICE ACTION (FOURTH DEPT))/EMPLOYMENT LAW (FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT, SEEKING ATTORNEY’S FEES FOR THE CLASS ACTION PURSUANT TO THE FEDERAL FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT (FLSA) CONSTITUTED SEEKING INDEMNIFICATION WHICH IS PROHIBITED BY THE ACT, THE BREACH OF CONTRACT ACTION IS NOT DUPLICATIVE OF THE ACCOUNTANT MALPRACTICE ACTION (FOURTH DEPT))/FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT (FLSA) (SEEKING ATTORNEY’S FEES FOR THE CLASS ACTION PURSUANT TO THE FEDERAL FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT (FLSA) CONSTITUTED SEEKING INDEMNIFICATION WHICH IS PROHIBITED BY THE ACT, THE BREACH OF CONTRACT ACTION IS NOT DUPLICATIVE OF THE ACCOUNTANT MALPRACTICE ACTION (FOURTH DEPT))/ACCOUNTANT MALPRACTICE (THE BREACH OF CONTRACT ACTION IS NOT DUPLICATIVE OF THE ACCOUNTANT MALPRACTICE ACTION (FOURTH DEPT))

February 9, 2018

Civil Procedure, Contract Law, Fiduciary Duty, Fraud

PLAINTIFF ALLEGED CONTINUING BREACHES OF CONTRACT, AIDING AND ABETTING FRAUD, NEGLIGENT MISREPRESENTATION AND AIDING AND ABETTING BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY FOR THE DURATION OF THE DEBT-RIDDEN WORKERS’ COMPENSATION TRUST, WHICH WAS TERMINATED 25 DAYS BEFORE THE EXPIRATION OF THE SIX YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS, THOSE CAUSES OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, modifying Supreme Court, determined the causes of action for breach of contract, aiding and abetting fraud and negligent misrepresentation, and aiding and abetting a breach of fiduciary duty should not have been dismissed as time barred. The underlying suit is based on the allegation that defendant insurance broker was on the board of a Workers’ Compensation trust, which plaintiff had joined, and which was $82 million in debt. The Third Department held that the six-year statute of limitations applied to all the (above-described) causes of action and the complaint alleged continuing breaches throughout the period of membership in the trust, which terminated 25 days before the expiration of the statute of limitations (i.e., the six-year period before the suit was brought extended back to March 24, 2008, and the trust was terminated on April 17, 2008):

… [T]he amended complaint alleges continuing contractual obligations on the part of defendant and specifies that the various acts and omissions constituting the breaches occurred “[t]hroughout the entire course of [p]laintiff’s membership in the [t]rust.” Deeming these allegations as true and according them every favorable inference, as we must … , we conclude that defendant failed to make the requisite prima facie showing that plaintiff’s breach of contract claim is time-barred in its entirety … . …

[P]laintiff’s causes of action for negligent misrepresentation and aiding and abetting fraud are timely insofar as they allege conduct occurring [during the 25 day window]. …

… [W]e disagree with Supreme Court’s conclusion that the entirety of plaintiff’s aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty claim is governed by a three-year statute of limitations. Because plaintiff does not seek equitable relief, a six-year statute of limitations period applies to a breach of fiduciary duty cause of action if “an allegation of fraud is essential to” such claim … . While a claim of fraud generally requires an affirmative misrepresentation, “fraud may also result from a fiduciary’s failure to disclose material facts when the fiduciary had a duty to disclose and acted with the intent to deceive” … . Krog Corp. v Vanner Group, Inc., 2018 NY Slip Op 00876, Third Dept 2-8-18

February 8, 2018

Fiduciary Duty, Limited Liability Company Law, Trusts and Estates

UNDER THE TERMS OF THE LIMITED LIABILITY AGREEMENT, THE ESTATE OF A DECEASED MEMBER OF THE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY (LLC) WAS NOT A MEMBER OF THE LLC AND THEREFORE COULD NOT PARTICIPATE IN THE RUNNING OF THE LLC OR INSPECT ITS BOOKS AND WAS NOT OWED A FIDUCIARY DUTY (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Kapnick, determined the limited liability agreement controlled in this action by the estate of a member of the limited liability company (LLC) against the LLC. Under the terms of the agreement the estate of the deceased member (Alex) was not a member of the LLC and therefore could not participate in the running of the company, could not demand to inspect the LLC’s books, and was not owed a fiduciary duty:

Ultimately, the parties disagree on the Estate’s rights and status under the LLC Agreement … . The Estate contends that it stepped into Alex’s shoes upon his death, and that it possesses all of his rights and privileges as a Member under the LLC Agreement. Defendants, on the other hand, contend that under the terms of the LLC Agreement, the Estate is considered the successor in interest of a Withdrawing Member (Alex) with rights only to potential distributions, and no rights to control or participate in the running of the company. Estate of Calderwood v ACE Group Intl. LLC, 2017 NY Slip Op 08750, First Dept 12-14-17

TRUSTS AND ESTATES (DEATH OF MEMBER OF LLC, UNDER THE TERMS OF THE LIMITED LIABILITY AGREEMENT, THE ESTATE OF A DECEASED MEMBER OF THE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY (LLC) WAS NOT A MEMBER OF THE LLC AND THEREFORE COULD NOT PARTICIPATE IN THE RUNNING OF THE LLC OR INSPECT ITS BOOKS AND WAS NOT OWED A FIDUCIARY DUTY (FIRST DEPT))/LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY (TRUSTS AND ESTATES, DEATH OF A MEMBER, UNDER THE TERMS OF THE LIMITED LIABILITY AGREEMENT, THE ESTATE OF A DECEASED MEMBER OF THE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY (LLC) WAS NOT A MEMBER OF THE LLC AND THEREFORE COULD NOT PARTICIPATE IN THE RUNNING OF THE LLC OR INSPECT ITS BOOKS AND WAS NOT OWED A FIDUCIARY DUTY (FIRST DEPT))/CORPORATION LAW (LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, DEATH OF A MEMBER, UNDER THE TERMS OF THE LIMITED LIABILITY AGREEMENT, THE ESTATE OF A DECEASED MEMBER OF THE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY (LLC) WAS NOT A MEMBER OF THE LLC AND THEREFORE COULD NOT PARTICIPATE IN THE RUNNING OF THE LLC OR INSPECT ITS BOOKS AND WAS NOT OWED A FIDUCIARY DUTY (FIRST DEPT))

December 14, 2017

Corporation Law, Fiduciary Duty, Limited Liability Company Law

ALTHOUGH PLAINTIFF WAS A MEMBER OF THE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY (LLC) WHEN HE STARTED THE LAWSUIT ASSERTING DERIVATIVE CAUSES OF ACTION, HE LOST STANDING TO CONTINUE WITH THE SUIT AFTER WITHDRAWING HIS MEMBERSHIP IN THE LLC (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined the causes of action brought by a minority shareholder in a limited liability company (LLC) were derivative in nature. The complaint was filed in 2012 and plaintiff withdrew from the LLC in 2015. Therefore plaintiff lacked standing to sue:

[Plaintiff] first cause of action sought an accounting, his second cause of action sought damages for breach of fiduciary duty, his third cause of action sought the appointment of a receiver … , his fourth cause of action sought the imposition of a constructive trust, and his fifth cause of action was to recover damages for waste. …

“[M]embers of a limited liability company (LLC) may bring derivative suits on the LLC’s behalf” … . In a derivative suit, “[t]he remedy sought is for wrong done to the corporation; the primary cause of action belongs to the corporation; [and] recovery must enure to the benefit of the corporation”… . In the context of a corporation, “the standing of the shareholder is based on the fact that . . . he [or she] is defending his [or her] own interests as well as those of the corporation” … . “Where the plaintiff voluntarily disposes of the stock, his [or her] rights as a shareholder cease, and his [or her] interest in the litigation is terminated. Being a stranger to the corporation, the former stockowner lacks standing to institute or continue the suit” … . The same is true in the context of an LLC. In order to maintain a derivative cause of action, a plaintiff must be a member of the LLC … . Thus, the Supreme Court properly held that, once the plaintiff withdrew from WIC, he lost standing to maintain any derivative causes of action on behalf of the company, notwithstanding his possible right to a future payment for the value of his membership interest upon his withdrawal … . Jacobs v Cartalemi, 2017 NY Slip Op 08506, Second Dept 12-6-17

CORPORATION LAW (LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, DERIVATIVE LAWSUITS, ALTHOUGH PLAINTIFF WAS A MEMBER OF THE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY (LLC) WHEN HE STARTED THE LAWSUIT ASSERTING DERIVATIVE CAUSES OF ACTION, HE LOST STANDING TO CONTINUE WITH THE SUIT AFTER WITHDRAWING HIS MEMBERSHIP IN THE LLC (SECOND DEPT))/LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY LAW (DERIVATIVE LAWSUITS, ALTHOUGH PLAINTIFF WAS A MEMBER OF THE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY (LLC) WHEN HE STARTED THE LAWSUIT ASSERTING DERIVATIVE CAUSES OF ACTION, HE LOST STANDING TO CONTINUE WITH THE SUIT AFTER WITHDRAWING HIS MEMBERSHIP IN THE LLC (SECOND DEPT))/DERIVATIVE LAWSUITS (LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY LAW, ALTHOUGH PLAINTIFF WAS A MEMBER OF THE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY (LLC) WHEN HE STARTED THE LAWSUIT ASSERTING DERIVATIVE CAUSES OF ACTION, HE LOST STANDING TO CONTINUE WITH THE SUIT AFTER WITHDRAWING HIS MEMBERSHIP IN THE LLC (SECOND DEPT))

December 6, 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

Attorneys, Fiduciary Duty

DEFENDANT ATTORNEY COULD NOT ACT AS BOTH BROKER AND ATTORNEY IN THE SALE OF A BUSINESS, RETAINER AGREEMENT UNENFORCEABLE, FEES ALREADY PAID MUST BE RETURNED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined Supreme Court properly found the defendant attorney’s retainer agreement unenforceable and properly ordered the attorney to disgorge the $65,000 fee which had been paid. The attorney had agreed to acted as both a broker and attorney in the sale of a business. The sale was not completed:

… [T]he plaintiffs established, prima facie, that the defendants acted as both attorney and broker in connection with the possible sale of the plaintiff company … , and that the retainer agreement provided for a contingency fee to compensate them in the event a sale of the company was completed. In opposition, the defendants failed to raise a triable issue of fact … . Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly determined that the retainer agreement is unenforceable because it created a nonconsentable conflict of interest under the Rules of Professional Conduct (see Rules of Professional Conduct [22 NYCRR 1200.0] rule 1.7[a][2]; NY St Bar Assn Comm on Prof Ethics Op 1015 [2014] … ). The fact that the defendants are seeking to recover under the hourly fee provision of the retainer agreement, instead of the contingency fee provision, does not alter this result. The conflict created by the contingent fee existed during the representation, regardless of whether a sale of the business was ultimately completed. Accordingly, upon renewal, the Supreme Court properly awarded the plaintiffs summary judgment dismissing the defendants’ first counterclaim to recover fees under the retainer agreement.

An attorney who violates a disciplinary rule may be discharged for cause and is not entitled to fees for any services rendered … .Here, the plaintiffs discharged the defendants for cause based on their nonconsentable conflict of interest in violation of Rules of Professional Conduct (22 NYCRR 1200.0) 1.7 … ). Thus, upon renewal, the Supreme Court properly awarded the plaintiffs summary judgment dismissing the defendants’ second counterclaim to recover in quantum meruit. Further, although the first cause of action is styled as one to recover damages for breach of fiduciary duty, it does not seek damages allegedly caused by such a breach, but merely for disgorgement of fees already paid … . Accordingly, upon renewal, the Supreme Court properly awarded the plaintiffs summary judgment on the first cause of action, in effect, to disgorge fees which had already been paid … . Jay Deitz & Assoc. of Nassau County, Ltd. v Breslow & Walker, LLP, 2017 NY Slip Op 05940, Second Dept 8-2-17

ATTORNEYS (DEFENDANT ATTORNEY COULD NOT ACT AS BOTH BROKER AND ATTORNEY IN THE SALE OF A BUSINESS, RETAINER AGREEMENT UNENFORCEABLE, FEES ALREADY PAID MUST BE RETURNED (SECOND DEPT))/BROKERS (ATTORNEYS, DEFENDANT ATTORNEY COULD NOT ACT AS BOTH BROKER AND ATTORNEY IN THE SALE OF A BUSINESS, RETAINER AGREEMENT UNENFORCEABLE, FEES ALREADY PAID MUST BE RETURNED (SECOND DEPT))/CONFLICT OF INTEREST (ATTORNEYS, DEFENDANT ATTORNEY COULD NOT ACT AS BOTH BROKER AND ATTORNEY IN THE SALE OF A BUSINESS, RETAINER AGREEMENT UNENFORCEABLE, FEES ALREADY PAID MUST BE RETURNED (SECOND DEPT))

August 2, 2017