Business Divorce: Five Considerations You Should Consider

It’s the Wednesday afternoon before Thanksgiving and the phone rings with a new client.  The situation in the office has become an emergency.  Either someone has been locked out or someone needs to be locked out, or someone is walking out the door with a key client. Many of our cases begin as emergencies.

The dispute between LLC members, shareholders or partners erupts into a lawsuit without warning, or so it seems, and without planning.  Here are five considerations that are important to success in a litigated business divorce.

1.         Understand the Statutory Framework.

Different types of businesses may be treated the same for taxes – partnerships, S Corporations and limited liability companies – but they are very different creatures when it comes to disputes between the principal owners.  The “default rules” for issues that have not been addressed in the business organization documents are very different, and the liability of individuals can be widely different.

A couple of examples should give you an idea.  The limited liability company and partnership statutes in many states contain provisions that permit the expulsion of a troublesome member or partner.  There are standards that have to be met, and they are significant, but the member or partner who makes it nearly impossible to continue the business with their participation can be tossed out.

Not so with the close corporation.  Most statutes permit the minority to demand the purchase of his or her shares if the majority has acted oppressively, but not the other way around.  If the majority doesn’t have the votes to fire or remove a shareholder, they may be stuck with that person.

Most partnerships and limited liability statutes have a minority veto built into their structure.  Unless it was previously agreed, you cannot change the basic operating documents – the partnership agreement or the operating agreement – without the consent of all of the members or partners.  Corporations on the other hand can usually operate with a majority vote and can change their by-laws or certificate of incorporation.

Continue Reading

Fidudiary Duties in Unfair Competition Case

You just learned that an employee secretly formed and operated a competing business while employed by you.  Is there a claim against the competing business or just the employee? Most likely there are viable claims against both.  The fiduciary duties of the employee are likely to be imputed to the company he or she formed.

Breach of Fiduciary Duties

Similar facts were before the court recently in an unfair competition and breach of fiduciary duty case, Vibra-Tech Engineers, Inc. v. Kavalek, Civil Action No.: 08-cv-2646, in the United District Court for the District of New Jersey. (opinion here) A vice president and director of Vibra-Tech, along with his wife, formed two businesses.  One of the businesses sold equipment to Vibra-Tech; the other competed directly for the same customers.  Vibra-Tech, of course, had no idea that one of their executives was involved in the two businesses.

The two companies formed by the employee moved for summary judgment, arguing that neither owed Vibra-Tech any fiduciary duties.  Normally that would be the case.  Fiduciary duties are created by the specific nature of a relationship.  The hallmark of a fiduciary duty is that one party places "trust and confidence" in the other, who has the ability to exercise discretion and expertise on their behalf.  Officers, directors and management employees generally owe their employers fiduciary duties.

Directors and Officers Duty

The fiduciary duty of a director, officer or management employee is to exercise their discretion on behalf of the best interests of the corporation, limited liability company or partnership.  This is true even when his or her personal interests may be at odds with the best interests of the business.  The fiduciary duty usually falls into one of two types: the duty of care or the duty of loyalty.

Competitors and others who contract at arms length owe no fiduciary duties.  It is presumed that they will act in their own self-interest.  That was the argument made by the New Jersey attorney representing the two businesses formed by the defendants in the Vibra-Tech case.  They argued that since they had no direct relationship with the plaintiff, they could have not fiduciary duties.

The court agreed that there were no fiduciary duties between the corporations, but held that the duties of the former employees and officer could be imputed to the businesses formed by the defendant.  New Jersey courts recognize that when an employee secretly forms a corporation to compete with his or her employee, the employee's breach of duty of loyalty can be imputed to the newly formed corporation.

Preparation to Compete

It is probably worth noting that employees who prepare to compete, but who do not actually compete, are usually not breaching any fiduciary duty.  Unless there is a restrictive covenant or non-competition agreement in place, employees can lawfully form new businesses and then resign to compete with their former employers.

There are a few caveats to the former employee's right to compete, however.  He or she may not use their employer's time to set up the business, may not take proprietary information -- including in most cases customer lists -- and may not solicit customers while still employed.

 


VIBRA-TECH ENGINEERS, INC., Plaintiff, v. SCOTT KAVALEK, et al., Defendants, Civil Action No. 08-2646-NLH, United States District Court, D. New Jersey, January 14, 2011.

EDWARD F. BORDEN, JR. DELIA ANNE DOUGHERTY EARP COHN CHERRY HILL, NJ Attorneys for Plaintiff Vibra-Tech Engineers, Inc.;JOHN JOSEPH MASTER, JR. LAW OFFICES OF JOHN J. MASTER, JR. HADDONFIELD, NJ, Attorney for Plaintiff Vibra-Tech Engineers, Inc.; STEPHEN J. LABROLI LEONARD, SCIOLLA, HUTCHISON, LEONARD & TINARI, LLP MOORESTOWN, NJ Attorney for Defendants Scott Kavalek, Roberta Kavalek, Intergrated Geotechnical Solutions, Inc. and Geotech Instruments, Inc.; ANDREW JOHN PODOLSKI Stark and Stark, PC Princeton, NJ Attorney for Defendant Charles Bauman; EDWARD G. ENGELHART SOMMER, ENGELHART & PESCATORE, ESQS. FAIRFIELD, NJ Attorney for Interested Parties Newmark Engineering, P.C. and Glenn Newmark.

 

<script type="text/javascript">
  var _gaq = _gaq || [];
  _gaq.push(['_setAccount', 'UA-13246692-4']);
  _gaq.push(['_setDomainName', '.newjerseybusinessdissolutionjournal.com']);
  _gaq.push(['_trackPageview']);
  (function() {
    var ga = document.createElement('script'); ga.type = 'text/javascript'; ga.async = true;
    ga.src = ('https:' == document.location.protocol ? 'https://ssl' : 'http://www') + '.google-analytics.com/ga.js';
    var s = document.getElementsByTagName('script')[0]; s.parentNode.insertBefore(ga, s);
  })();
</script>