In many places, COVID-19 is making a comeback, or never actually left. But as far as an effective excuse to keep business partners in the dark, the pandemic has been hanging around for far too long. » Read More
Many business owners reading this article are facing a severe COVID-19-related economic downturn and simply struggling for survival. However, this does not describe all businesses. Some have been, and remain, closed completely. Some are better able to adapt to a remote environment than others, and some may even thrive in this environment. » Read More
The world has changed. The COVID-19 virus is impacting everything and everyone, and certainly only the most fortunate of businesses will not be adversely impacted. If you as a business owner have reason to believe that you are an oppressed minority shareholder with the right to file suit against your fellow shareholder(s), it is easy to conclude that you perhaps should hold off on filing that shareholder oppression claim, at least until some semblance of normalcy has been restored. » Read More
There appears to be an uptick in the filing of meritless corporate shareholder and LLC member oppression claims in New Jersey. Not everything that majority shareholders do that upsets a minority owner is worth spending legal fees to pursue.
When the only allegations one can make are a failure to keep an absentee shareholder fully informed of all business transactions, and a failure to obtain that minority shareholder’s consent to such transactions, that alone is rarely a recipe for successful litigation. » Read More
A common theme among minority shareholders seeking legal representation is termination of employment. Readers of this blog may be aware that termination can often constitute minority shareholder oppression, warranting a remedy such as a court-ordered buyout. But, unfortunately, not all terminations are equal, as not all terminations constitute oppression. » Read More
Recently, a defendant testified in a deposition that I was conducting that there was no reason that he could not fire my client, who was a 28% minority shareholder in a New Jersey corporation. Since the defendant was the majority (51%) owner, he believed he could fire whomever he wanted. » Read More
