You are here: Home / Partnership Law
image_pdfPDF Friendly Versionimage_printPrint Friendly Version
,

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
,

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
,

Plaintiff Judgment-Creditor’s Action Under the Debtor Creditor Law to Recover Payment Made to a Limited Partner Time-Barred by Three-Year Statute of Limitations in the Revised Limited Partnership Act (RPLA)

In a detailed and fact-specified full-fledged opinion by Justice Acosta, in an action under the Debtor and Creditor Law (DCL), the First Department, determined plaintiff, a judgment creditor with an unpaid judgment against a partnership, could not reach a $425,000 payment made by the partnership to a limited partner. The court held the payment was not fraudulent, constituted a partnership distribution, and was subject to the three-year statute of limitations in the Revised Limited Partnership Act (RPLA), not the six-year statute of limitations in the Debtor and Creditor Law (DCL). Therefore, plaintiff’s action seeking the recover the payment was time-barred;

RLPA (Partnership Law) § 121-607 prohibits limited partnerships from making distributions “to a partner to the extent that, at the time of the distribution, after giving effect to the distribution, all liabilities of the limited partnership. . . exceed the fair market value of the assets of the limited partnership” (Partnership Law § 121-607[a]) … . A limited partner who knowingly receives a prohibited distribution is liable to the partnership in the amount of the distribution (§ 121-607[b]). However, “a limited partner who receives a wrongful distribution . . . shall have no liability under this article or other applicable law for the amount of the distribution after the expiration of three years from the date of the distribution” (§ 121-607[c]). … [T]he Limited Liability Company Law (LLCL) contains a similar limitation on distributions to members (LLCL §§ 102[i], 508[a]). Peckar & Abramson, P.C. v Lyford Holdings, Ltd., 2015 NY Slip Op 08363, 1st Dept 11-17-15

 

/by
,

Where There Is a Surviving Partner and No Agreement to the Contrary, the Representative of a Deceased Partner Cannot Participate in the Winding Up of the Partnership and Has No Legal Right to the Partnership’s Assets, Books, Records or Business

The Second Department noted that the power to wind up a partnership (here BDF) is held by the surviving partner (here 6D) and cannot be exercised by the representative of a deceased partner (here Mrs. Benedict):

Under Partnership Law § 68, “[u]nless otherwise agreed the partners who have not wrongfully dissolved the partnership or the legal representative of the last surviving partner, not bankrupt, has the right to wind up the partnership affairs; provided, however, that any partner, his [or her] legal representative, or his [or her] assignee, upon cause shown, may obtain winding up by the court.” Further, on the death of a partner, “his [or her] right in specific partnership property vests in the surviving partner or partners, except where the deceased was the last surviving partner, when his [or her] right in such property vests in his [or her] legal representative” (Partnership Law § 51[2][d]…). The representative of a deceased partner is not entitled to participate in or interfere with the continuation of or winding up of partnership business by the surviving partner … .

Based on this authority, the Supreme Court correctly determined that, upon Mrs. Benedict's death, 6D was the only entity with a legal right to wind up BDF's business affairs because 6D was the only surviving partner. Moreover, upon Mrs. Benedict's death, the estate had no legal right to BDF's assets, books, records, or business. Rather, all rights to such property vested immediately in 6D, which was the only entity authorized to wind up BDF's business.  Neilson v 6D Farm Corp, 2014 NY Slip Op 08409, 2nd Dept 12-3-14

 

/by
,

Criteria for Appointment of Temporary Receiver to Wind Up Dissolution of Partnership Not Met

The Second Department determined Supreme Court should not have appointed a receiver to wind up the dissolution of a partnership because the criteria for the appointment (irreparable loss or waste of property) had not been met:

The Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in granting that branch of the plaintiffs’ motion which was pursuant to CPLR 6401 for the appointment of a temporary receiver to wind up the affairs of a partnership … and to liquidate and distribute its assets. “A party moving for the appointment of a temporary receiver must submit clear and convincing evidence of irreparable loss or waste to the subject property and that a temporary receiver is needed to protect their interests'” (…see CPLR 6401[a]…). Here, the plaintiffs failed to make a “clear evidentiary showing that property of the [partnership] was in danger of being removed from the state, or lost, materially injured or destroyed'” … . Accordingly, that branch of the plaintiffs’ motion which was for the appointment of a temporary receiver should have been denied. Magee v Magee, 2014 NY Slip Op 05845, 2nd Dept 8-20-14

 

/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