Derivative litigation

Subscribe to Derivative litigation via RSS

In Pennsylvania, Manufactured Deadlocks are Unlikely to Trigger Judicial Dissolution

In disputes among the owners of a closely held company, involuntary judicial dissolution is the nuclear option.

When a group of shareholders successfully petitions a court to dissolve and then liquidate their company because the owners reached an impasse they could not overcome, there will be no more company to speak of. While that might have been the intended outcome for the petitioning shareholders, the fire-sale price the company’s assets will probably fetch on the open market is an unpleasant accompanying pill they’ll have to swallow.

Despite the risk of a fire sale, in many shareholder disputes at least one party will threaten to seek judicial dissolution of their company. They argue that dissolution is required because of some irreconcilable difference that makes it impossible to continue operating the company.Continue Reading AIN’T NOTHING LIKE THE REAL THING

When shareholders of a company believe the leaders of the company have breached their fiduciary duties to it, they can bring a lawsuit against those leaders in one of two ways. Shareholders can bring the suit in their own names (a direct suit), or they can bring it on behalf of the company if the company failed to bring claims against the leaders on its own (a derivative suit). If the injuries the shareholders are alleging were only suffered by the company, they cannot move forward with any direct claims.

When bringing a derivative claim in federal court, the plaintiffs must comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23.1. The rule, besides explaining what a derivative complaint must include, prevents a plaintiff from bringing a derivative lawsuit if the plaintiff “does not fairly and adequately represent the interests of shareholders or members who are similarly situated in enforcing the right of the corporation or association.”Continue Reading PENNSYLVANIA’S ALTERNATIVE PATH FOR MINORITY SHAREHOLDERS WHO CAN’T PASS FEDERAL RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 23.1’S “ADEQUATE REPRESENTATION” TEST FOR DERIVATIVE CLAIMS

There is perhaps no richer vein of literary gold than conflict between fathers and sons. Hamlet, Robinson Crusoe, multiple characters drawn by Charles Dickens, not to mention the mother of all family contretemps, Oedipus Rex, touch on this deeply human power struggle.

One such conflict was the backdrop for the Pennsylvania Superior Court’s recent decision in MBC Development, LP v. James W. Miller, 281 A.3d 332 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2022). The decision serves as an important reminder that courts overwhelmingly favor arbitration as a means of dispute resolution, and gives us an opportunity to think about the virtues of arbitration provisions in organizational documents like limited partnership and operating agreements.Continue Reading A FATHER-SON FIGHT HELPS DEFINE THE SCOPE OF ARBITRATION PROVISIONS IN CLOSELY HELD COMPANY DISPUTES

Last month, we tackled Pennsylvania’s “universal” demand requirement. As a refresher, unlike many states, Pennsylvania will not excuse the shareholder of a company who wants the company to sue its executives or directors from making a written demand on the company’s board of directors prior to filing a lawsuit even when doing so would…

Attorneys that represent shareholders of publicly traded companies in securities litigation are intimately familiar with the pre-suit demand required by the corporate law of many states. The purpose of the demand is to give the board of a company an opportunity to investigate and remedy alleged wrongdoing on the company’s behalf before a shareholder is…

I recently covered whether parties can be liable for a claim of aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty in Pennsylvania.

In that post, I explained the two different frameworks for these claims that have been established by Pennsylvania courts. Both contain a knowledge requirement. One framework requires “knowledge of the breach by the aider…

You represent a minority shareholder of a closely-held corporation and the company is having an off year. The majority shareholder is the sole member of the board and serves in every officer position. She draws significant compensation. Without a business justification, she unilaterally decides to double her salary and have the company pay the mortgage…

This column previously analyzed the Commonwealth Court’s decision in Pittsburgh History and Landmarks Foundation, 161 A.3d 394 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2017), and its potential impact on the attorney-client privilege in derivative litigation. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court subsequently granted petitions for allowance of appeal in the case, setting the stage for the court’s first decision…