You are here: / Partnership Law
,

THE DETAILED STATUTORY SCHEME OF THE REVISED LIMITED PARTNERSHIP ACT (RLPA) PRECLUDED ENFORCEMENT OF THE UNSIGNED PURPORTED AMENDMENT TO THE PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENT (FIRST DEPT). ​

he First Department determined the 1999 partnership agreement controlled and the purported 2004 amendment to the agreement, which was not executed, could not be enforced. The decision is too detailed to fairly summarize here. Suffice to say that the detailed statutory scheme of the Revised Limited Partnership Act (RLPA) precluded ignoring the Statute of Frauds with respect to the unexecuted amendment:

By design, the RLPA sets forth a clear separation between general and limited partners. This separation is more defined than the division between managers and members in limited liability corporations. With few exceptions, the RLPA provides that a general partner has the liabilities of a partner in a non-limited partnership. In exchange for a more passive position, the limited partners are generally sheltered from personal liability to third parties who transact business with the limited partnership (see generally, Bruce A. Rich, Practice Commentaries, McKinney’s Cons. Laws of NY, Book 38, Revised Limited Partnership Act, at 317, 334-336). The RLPA’s default requirements of partner consent to substantive changes to a limited partnership agreement helps protect the passive limited partners from actions taken by general partners that might adversely affect the limited partners’ interests. That default protection would be undermined if we were to engraft on to the RLPA the equitable exceptions applicable to the Statute of Frauds. Accordingly, we decline to do so. A&F Hamilton Hgts. Cluster, Inc. v Urban Green Mgt., Inc., 2020 NY Slip Op 04440, First Dept 8-6-20

 

/by
, , ,

FORMER LAW FIRM PARTNER WAS ENTITLED TO AN ACCOUNTING; IN DETERMINING THE BUYOUT PRICE UPON THE PARTNER’S WITHDRAWAL FROM THE PARTNERSHIP, THE TERMS OF THE PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENT, RATHER THAN PARTNERSHIP LAW, CONTROL (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined plaintiff, a former partner in a law firm, was entitled to an accounting and a buyout price calculated pursuant to the provisions of the partnership agreement:

” The right to an accounting is premised upon the existence of a confidential or fiduciary relationship and a breach of the duty imposed by that relationship respecting property in which the party seeking the accounting has an interest'” … . A plaintiff seeking an accounting has to show that he or she entrusted money or property to the defendant with respect to which he or she has an interest or which, in equity, ought to be divided … . Here, we agree with the Supreme Court’s determination awarding the plaintiff summary judgment on the cause of action for an accounting to determine the amount due to him pursuant to the terms of the partnership agreement. ” … [W]here . . . there is a fiduciary relationship between the parties, there is an absolute right to an accounting notwithstanding the existence of an adequate remedy at law” … Here, it is undisputed that there was a fiduciary relationship between the plaintiff and the defendants. …

… “[A] partnership is a voluntary, contractual association in which persons carry on a business for profit as co-owners. In the agreement establishing a partnership, the partners can chart their own course” … . … [W]hile New York’s Partnership Law provides certain default provisions where a partnership agreement is silent, where the agreement clearly sets forth the terms between the partners, it is the agreement that governs … .

Here, the partnership agreement expressly provides that the partnership “shall not be dissolved” upon the resignation of a partner. The terms of the partnership agreement take precedence over Partnership Law § 62, which permits a partnership to be dissolved at any time by any partner. The firm was not dissolved, but rather, the plaintiff withdrew from the firm on August 3, 2010. Accordingly, pursuant to the terms of the partnership agreement, the plaintiff was entitled to the buyout price, as defined in that agreement, and payable in accordance with the terms of that agreement. Zohar v LaRock, 2020 NY Slip Op 04202, Second Dept 7-22-20

 

/by
,

NOTICE PURPORTING TO DISSOLVE A PARTNERSHIP WAS A NULLITY BECAUSE IT DID NOT COMPORT WITH THE RELEVANT PROVISIONS OF THE PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENT (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined the notice issued by two partners purporting to dissolve the partnership was a nullity because the notice did not comport with the relevant provisions of the partnership agreement:

On October 15, 2015, two of the partners issued a notice purporting to withdraw from and dissolve the partnerships, pursuant to New York Partnership Law § 62(1)(b), “which,” the notice said, “provides that a partnership is terminable at will on notice.” * * *

“New York's Partnership Law creates default provisions that fill gaps in partnership agreements, but where the agreement clearly states the means by which a partnership will dissolve, or other aspects of partnership dissolution, it is the agreement that governs the change in relations between partners and the future of the business” … . Where, as here, a partnership agreement contains provisions governing the dissolution of the partnership by the will of the partners, ordinary contract principles apply … , and a notice by a partner or partners to dissolve a partnership in contravention of the partnership agreement's dissolution provisions is a legal nullity and does not effect a dissolution of the partnership. Wiener v Weissman, 2018 NY Slip Op 06205, First Dept 9-26-18

PARTNERSHIP LAW (NOTICE PURPORTING TO DISSOLVE A PARTNERSHIP WAS A NULLITY BECAUSE IT DID NOT COMPORT WITH THE RELEVANT PROVISIONS OF THE PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENT (FIRST DEPT))/CONTRACT LAW (PARTNERSHIP LAW, NOTICE PURPORTING TO DISSOLVE A PARTNERSHIP WAS A NULLITY BECAUSE IT DID NOT COMPORT WITH THE RELEVANT PROVISIONS OF THE PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENT (FIRST DEPT))

/by
,

COMPLAINT ALLEGING BREACH OF A JOINT VENTURE AGREEMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, TWO ESSENTIAL ELEMENTS OF A JOINT VENTURE, SHARING COSTS AND CONTROL, WERE ABSENT (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the underlying breach of contract complaint should have been dismissed. Plaintiff alleged the contract created a joint venture. But the absence of an agreement to share costs and control precluded any finding that a joint venture had been formed by the contract:

In order to properly plead the existence of a joint venture agreement, a plaintiff must allege “acts manifesting the intent of the parties to be associated as joint venturers, mutual contribution to the joint undertaking through a combination of property, financial resources, effort, skill or knowledge, a measure of joint proprietorship and control over the enterprise, and a provision for the sharing of profits and losses”… . “An indispensable [element] of a contract of partnership or joint venture, both under common law and statutory law, is a mutual promise or undertaking of the parties to share in the profits of the business and submit to the burden of making good the losses” … .

Here, plaintiff fails to indicate the losses he would be jointly and severally liable for, and points to no provision in the alleged agreement for the sharing of any losses. Instead, there is nothing more than a conclusory allegation that any losses would be borne equally by the parties. To the contrary, the allegations in the complaint before us clearly state that any prospective losses were intended to be paid solely from defendant's share of the proceeds of the project. The failure to provide for the sharing of losses from the project is fatal to plaintiff's claim that a joint venture was created … .

Moreover, the complaint specifically alleged that management and control of the enterprise was to be completely vested in defendant, thus negating another element of a joint venture … . Slabakis v Schik, 2018 NY Slip Op 05962, First Dept 8-30-18

PARTNERSHIP LAW (JOINT VENTURE, COMPLAINT ALLEGING BREACH OF A JOINT VENTURE AGREEMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, TWO ESSENTIAL ELEMENTS OF A JOINT VENTURE, SHARING COSTS AND CONTROL, WERE ABSENT (FIRST DEPT))/CONTRACT LAW (JOINT VENTURE, COMPLAINT ALLEGING BREACH OF A JOINT VENTURE AGREEMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, TWO ESSENTIAL ELEMENTS OF A JOINT VENTURE, SHARING COSTS AND CONTROL, WERE ABSENT (FIRST DEPT))/JOINT VENTURE (COMPLAINT ALLEGING BREACH OF A JOINT VENTURE AGREEMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, TWO ESSENTIAL ELEMENTS OF A JOINT VENTURE, SHARING COSTS AND CONTROL, WERE ABSENT (FIRST DEPT))

/by
,

A PARTNERSHIP CANNOT OPERATE THROUGH AN EXISTING CORPORATE STRUCTURE (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, noted that a partnership cannot operate through an existing corporate structure:

Plaintiffs operated a court reporting partnership from 1975 to 1999. Upon dissolution of the partnership, they agreed to consolidate their business with defendant, an existing court reporting corporation … . * * *

… [A] party “cannot recover on a claim that he [or she] and [another individual] entered into a joint venture to be set up and run through the corporate . . . structure” … . “[A]s a general rule, a partnership may not exist where the business is conducted in a corporate form, as each is governed by a separate body of law . . . Parties may not be partners between themselves while using the corporate shield to protect themselves against personal liability” … . Although that rule has been qualified “so as not to preclude members of a preexisting joint venture from acting as partners between themselves and as a corporation to the rest of the world,’ ” that qualification is inapplicable here because defendant [corporation]  was formed before the partnership was allegedly created by an oral agreement … . In other words, “there was no preexisting joint venture that later spawned the creation of a corporation in which aspects of the joint venture could survive” … . Bianchi v Midtown Reporting Serv., Inc., 2018 NY Slip Op 04895, Fourth Dept 6-28-18

​PARTNERSHIP LAW (A PARTNERSHIP CANNOT OPERATE THROUGH AN EXISTING CORPORATE STRUCTURE (FOURTH DEPT))/CORPORATION LAW (A PARTNERSHIP CANNOT OPERATE THROUGH AN EXISTING CORPORATE STRUCTURE (FOURTH DEPT))/JOINT VENTURES (A PARTNERSHIP CANNOT OPERATE THROUGH AN EXISTING CORPORATE STRUCTURE (FOURTH DEPT))

/by
,

PURPORTED DISSOLUTION OF THE PARTNERSHIP VIOLATED THE PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENT, PLAINTIFFS NOT ENTITLED TO ATTORNEY’S FEES, GOODWILL REDUCTION SUPPORTED BY THE RECORD, MINORITY DISCOUNT APPLIED (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a comprehensive opinion by Judge Fahey, over a two-judge partial dissenting opinion, determined that the defendant’s attempt to dissolve a partnership violated the partnership agreement, the plaintiffs were not entitled to attorney’s fees, the reduction for goodwill was supported by the record, the lack-of-marketability discount issue was not preserved, and the minority discount was applicable. The dissent agreed with everything except the applicability of the minority discount:

… [Parties to a partnership agreement generally have the right to contract around a provision of the Partnership Law, provided of course they do so in language that is “clear, unequivocal and unambiguous”… . No particular magic words need be recited, provided that the parties’ intent is clear.  * * *

Here, the Agreement stated that the Partnership “shall continue until it is terminated as hereinafter provided,” and, in a subsequent provision, stated that the Partnership would dissolve upon “[t]he election by the Partners to dissolve the Partnership” or “[t]he happening of any event which makes it unlawful for the business of the Partnership to be carried on or for the Partners to carry it on in Partnership.” The partners clearly intended that the methods provided in the Agreement for dissolution were the only methods whereby the partnership would dissolve in accordance with the Agreement, and by implication that unilateral dissolution would breach the Agreement. In other words, the Agreement contemplated dissolution only in two instances, leaving no room for other means of dissolution that would be in accordance with its terms. * * *

We conclude … that to award fees to plaintiffs would be to contradict New York’s well-established adoption of the American Rule that “the prevailing litigant ordinarily cannot collect . . . attorneys’ fees from its unsuccessful opponents” … . Contrary to Supreme Court, the standard is not which party was “more responsible” for the litigation. Attorneys’ fees are treated as “incidents of litigation” … . * * *

A minority discount is a standard tool in valuation of a financial interest, designed to reflect the fact that the price an investor is willing to pay for a minority ownership interest in a business, whether a corporation or a partnership, is less because the owner of a minority interest lacks control of the business. Congel v Malfitano, 2018 NY Slip Op 02119, CtApp 3-27-18

PARTNERSHIP LAW (PURPORTED DISSOLUTION OF THE PARTNERSHIP VIOLATED THE PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENT, PLAINTIFFS NOT ENTITLED TO ATTORNEY’S FEES, GOODWILL REDUCTION SUPPORTED BY THE RECORD, MINORITY DISCOUNT APPLIED (CT APP))/DISSOLUTION OF PARTNERSHIP (PURPORTED DISSOLUTION OF THE PARTNERSHIP VIOLATED THE PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENT, PLAINTIFFS NOT ENTITLED TO ATTORNEY’S FEES, GOODWILL REDUCTION SUPPORTED BY THE RECORD, MINORITY DISCOUNT APPLIED (CT APP))/ATTORNEYS (ATTORNEY’S FEES, PARTNERSHIP LAW, PURPORTED DISSOLUTION OF THE PARTNERSHIP VIOLATED THE PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENT, PLAINTIFFS NOT ENTITLED TO ATTORNEY’S FEES, GOODWILL REDUCTION SUPPORTED BY THE RECORD, MINORITY DISCOUNT APPLIED (CT APP))/GOODWILL REDUCTION (PARTNERSHIP LAW, PURPORTED DISSOLUTION OF THE PARTNERSHIP VIOLATED THE PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENT, PLAINTIFFS NOT ENTITLED TO ATTORNEY’S FEES, GOODWILL REDUCTION SUPPORTED BY THE RECORD, MINORITY DISCOUNT APPLIED (CT APP))/LACK OF MARKETABILITY DISCOUNT (PARTNERSHIP LAW, PURPORTED DISSOLUTION OF THE PARTNERSHIP VIOLATED THE PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENT, PLAINTIFFS NOT ENTITLED TO ATTORNEY’S FEES, GOODWILL REDUCTION SUPPORTED BY THE RECORD, MINORITY DISCOUNT APPLIED (CT APP))/MINORITY DISCOUNT (PARTNERSHIP LAW, PURPORTED DISSOLUTION OF THE PARTNERSHIP VIOLATED THE PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENT, PLAINTIFFS NOT ENTITLED TO ATTORNEY’S FEES, GOODWILL REDUCTION SUPPORTED BY THE RECORD, MINORITY DISCOUNT APPLIED (CT APP))

/by
,

DEFENDANT DEMONSTRATED NO PARTNERSHIP HAD BEEN FORMED, SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS ACTION ALLEGING BREACH OF A PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENT PROPERLY GRANTED. ​

The Fourth Department, over a dissent, determined summary judgment was properly granted to defendant in this breach of a partnership agreement action. Defendant demonstrated no partnership had been formed:

“A partnership is an association of two or more persons to carry on as co-owners a business for profit” (Partnership Law § 10 [1]). Where, as here, there is no written partnership agreement between the parties, a court looks to the parties’ conduct, intent, and relationship to determine whether a partnership existed in fact … . The relevant factors are (1) the parties’ intent, whether express or implied; (2) whether there was joint control and management of the business; (3) whether the parties shared both profits and losses; and (4) whether the parties combined their property, skill, or knowledge … . No single factor is determinative; a court considers the parties’ relationship as a whole … .

… [W}e must consider whether the parties expressly or implicitly intended to become partners … . Evidence concerning the parties’ preliminary negotiations bears directly on their intent …  In support of his motion, defendant submitted, inter alia, the deposition testimony of plaintiff, the affidavit of defendant, invoices, a lease, and the parties’ correspondence documenting their contract negotiations. That evidence establishes that the parties never shared the intent to become partners. In June 2004, defendant wrote an email to plaintiff suggesting that they discuss “how [they] might be able to work together.” Plaintiff responded that a partnership “might work” and expressed hope that the parties could come to a “workable agreement.” Thereafter, the parties met in person and plaintiff explained that he wanted a 50% share in a partnership. Plaintiff later testified at his deposition that, upon hearing that proposal, defendant had “a look on his face like maybe he wasn’t expecting that,” and did not respond.

Although plaintiff testified that he interpreted defendant’s silence as an agreement to an equal partnership, the documentary evidence undermines any such assumption. * * * … [T]he evidence demonstrates that the parties never shared the intent to enter into a partnership, although they initially had explored the possibility of one. Hammond v Smith, 2017 NY Slip Op 05337, 4th Dept 6-30-17

 

/by
,

COMPLAINT STATED A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR AIDING AND ABETTING BREACH OF A FIDUCIARY DUTY.

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff stated a cause of action for aiding and abetting the breach of a fiduciary duty. Plaintiff’s former partner left the partnership and joined defendant accounting firm, taking a client with him. Partners owe one another a fiduciary duty. The complaint alleged the defendant firm aided and abetted the former partner in breaching that duty. The court outlined the relevant law:

To recover damages for aiding and abetting a breach of fiduciary duty, a plaintiff must plead and prove that a fiduciary duty owed to the plaintiff was breached, that the defendant knowingly induced or participated in the breach, and that the plaintiff was damaged as a result of the breach … . Knowing participation in a breach of fiduciary duty occurs when the defendant provides substantial assistance to the primary violator … . ” Substantial assistance occurs when a defendant affirmatively assists, helps conceal or fails to act when required to do so, thereby enabling the breach to occur . . . . However, the mere inaction of an alleged aider or abettor constitutes substantial assistance only if the defendant owes a fiduciary duty directly to the plaintiff'” … . Smallberg v Raich Ende Malter & Co., LLP, 2016 NY Slip Op 04704, 2nd Dept 6-15-16

 

PARTNERSHIP LAW (COMPLAINT STATED A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR AIDING AND ABETTING BREACH OF A FIDUCIARY DUTY)/FIDUCIARY DUTY (PARTNERSHIP LAW, COMPLAINT STATED A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR AIDING AND ABETTING BREACH OF A FIDUCIARY DUTY)

/by

WHEN DETERMINING THE VALUE OF A PARTNERSHIP SHARE UPON DISSOLUTION, A MINORITY DISCOUNT CAN PROPERLY BE APPLIED TO A PARTNER WHO WRONGFULLY DISSOLVED THE PARTNERSHIP AND WHO DID NOT EXERCISE CONTROL OVER THE PARTNERSHIP AS A GOING CONCERN.

The Second Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Dickerson, determined a “minority discount” should be applied to the share of a partnership awarded to a partner who wrongfully dissolved the partnership. The minority discount is appropriate where the partner did not exercise control over the partnership as a going concern. The court noted that the prohibition of a minority discount for minority corporate shareholders did not apply to partnerships:

… [T]his case does not involve a determination of the “fair value” of a dissenting shareholder's shares pursuant to Business Corporation Law §§ 623 and 1118, but rather, involves the determination of the “value” of the shares of a partner who has wrongfully caused the dissolution of a partnership pursuant to Partnership Law § 69(2)(c)(II). … [A]pplying a minority discount in the context of valuing a partnership interest “would not contravene the distinctly corporate statutory proscription (Business Corporation Law § 501[c]) against treating holders of the same class of stock differently, or undermine the remedial goal of the appraisal statutes to protect shareholders from being forced to sell at unfair values, or inevitably encourage oppressive majority conduct” … . Congel v Malfitano, 2016 NY Slip Op 03845, 2nd Dept 5-18-16

PARTNERSHIP LAW (WHEN DETERMINING THE VALUE OF A PARTNERSHIP SHARE UPON DISSOLUTION, A MINORITY DISCOUNT CAN PROPERLY BE APPLIED TO A PARTNER WHO WRONGFULLY DISSOLVED THE PARTNERSHIP AND WHO DID NOT EXCERCISE CONTROL OVER THE PARTNERSHIP AS A GOING CONCERN)/MINORITY DISCOUNT (PARTNERSHIP LAW, WHEN DETERMINING THE VALUE OF A PARTNERSHIP SHARE UPON DISSOLUTION, A MINORITY DISCOUNT CAN PROPERLY BE APPLIED TO A PARTNER WHO WRONGFULLY DISSOLVED THE PARTNERSHIP AND WHO DID NOT EXCERCISE CONTROL OVER THE PARTNERSHIP AS A GOING CONCERN)

/by
,

SUIT ALLEGING BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY IN CONNECTION WITH THE SALE OF AN ASSET OWNED NEARLY ENTIRELY BY BANKRUPT LEHMAN BROTHERS DISMISSED.

The First Department dismissed a complaint alleging, inter alia, breach of a limited partnership agreement and breach of fiduciary duty in connection of the sale of a fund (Archstone) nearly entirely owned by bankrupt Lehman Brothers. Plaintiff, who had purchased a 1% interest in the fund for $20 million, alleged the sale will generate enough to pay only the preferred interests and will “wipe out” the minority interests (including plaintiff). Plaintiff further alleged the sale was motivated by Lehman's desire to pay creditors relating to its 2008 bankruptcy. In dismissing the breach of fiduciary duty cause of action, the court explained the analytical criteria, including an “entire fairness” analysis:

Even under the heightened entire fairness standard advocated by plaintiff, the claim is insufficient. An “entire fairness” analysis focuses on two entwined considerations: fair dealing and fair price … . Plaintiff fails to allege facts demonstrating the absence of fairness, or that it did not “receive the substantial equivalent in value of what [it] had before” … . Conclusory assertions that amounts paid were “unfair” are insufficient … . Plaintiff concedes that the $16 billion transaction price attained Archstone's current value at the time of the transaction. Plaintiff also admits that the transaction “represented a premium of approximately 15% over the implied purchase price of Lehman's combined acquisitions of the interests of the other [s]ponsor [b]anks' interests earlier in 2012.” Plaintiff identifies no alternative transactions, let alone one that would have achieved more value for the Fund. Fiduciaries are “not required to abandon [a] transaction simply because a better deal might have become available in the future” … . Cambridge Capital Real Estate Invs., LLC v Archstone Enter. LP, 2016 NY Slip Op 02017, 1st Dept 3-22-16

PARTNERSHIP LAW (BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY CAUSE OF ACTION BY MINORITY INTEREST HOLDER DISMISSED)/FIDUCIARY DUTY, BREACH OF (PARTNERSHIP LAW, BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY CAUSE OF ACTION BY MINORITY INTEREST HOLDER DISMISSED)

/by

Categories

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

Copyright © 2020 New York Appellate Digest, LLC
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy