New York Law Protects Minority Shareholders From Oppression

By Scott I. Unger on April 24th, 2012

Posted in Business & Commercial Law

New York law provides protections for oppressed minority shareholders. These protections are contained in under New York’s minority oppression statute, it’s interpretation by the Courts along with New York’s recognition of the fiduciary duties majority shareholders owe the minority.

“Although the term ‘oppressive actions’ is not statutorily defined, the Court of Appeals has held that ‘oppression should be deemed to arise when the majority conduct substantially defeats expectations that, objectively viewed, were both reasonable under the circumstances and were central to the petitioner’s decision to join the venture.'” In re Dissolution of Upstate Medical Assoc. P. C., 739 N.Y.S.2d at 767 (citing Matter of Kemp & Beatley, Inc., 64 N.Y.2d 63, 73 [N.Y.1984] [‘A shareholder who reasonably expected that ownership in the corporation would entitle him or her to … a share of corporate earnings, …, or some other form of security, would be oppressed in a very real sense when others in the corporation seek to defeat those expectations and there exists no effective means of salvaging the investment.’] ).

‘The relationship between majority and minority shareholders in New York is a fiduciary one. Brunetti v. Musallam, 11 A.D.3d 280 [N.Y.App. Div., 1st Dept.2004] Pursuant to that fiduciary duty, a majority shareholders in a closely held corporation may  not to engage in oppressive actions toward minority shareholders. McCagg v. Schulte Roth & Zabel LLP, No. 601566/04, 2008 WL 4065920, at *8 (N.Y. Sup.Ct., New York County 2008); see also In re Dissolution of Upstate Medical Assoc. P.C., 739 N.Y.S.2d 766, 767 (N.Y.App.Div., 3rd Dept.2002).

In addition, New  York Court have consistently held that corporate directors and controlling shareholders of close corporations owe minority shareholders the extreme measure of candor, unselfishness and good faith.’ Harger v. Price, 204 F.Supp.2d 699, 707 (S.D.N.Y.2002) (citing Kavanaugh v. Kavanaugh, 226 N.Y. 185, 193 [1919] ).
Thus, if you are being oppressed by the majority in a closely held, New York Corporation, you may be entitled to relief.

Multiple locations to better serve your needs—

Hamilton, NJ

100 American Metro Boulevard
Hamilton, NJ 08619
Phone: 609.896.9060
Secondary phone: 800.535.3425
Fax: 609.896.0629
county best pa pennsylvania reviews south jersey berks northhampton montgomery bucks lehigh valley gloucester burlington mercer

Marlton, NJ

40 Lake Center, 401 NJ-73, Suite 130
Marlton, NJ 08053
Phone: 856.874.4443
Secondary phone: 888.241.7424
Fax: 856.874.0133
county best pa pennsylvania reviews south jersey berks northhampton montgomery bucks lehigh valley gloucester burlington mercer

Yardley, PA

777 Township Line Road, Suite 120
Yardley, PA 19067
Phone: 267.907.9600
Fax: 267.907.9659
county best pa pennsylvania reviews south jersey berks northhampton montgomery bucks lehigh valley gloucester burlington mercer

New York, NY

5 Pennsylvania Plaza 23rd Floor
New York, NY 10001
Phone: 800.535.3425
county best pa pennsylvania reviews south jersey berks northhampton montgomery bucks lehigh valley gloucester burlington mercer

Philadelphia, PA

The Bellevue 200 S Broad St #600
Philadelphia, PA 19102
Phone: 267.907.9600
Secondary phone: 800.535.3425
Fax: 215.564.6245
county best pa pennsylvania reviews south jersey berks northhampton montgomery bucks lehigh valley gloucester burlington mercer

Bridgeton, NJ

78 W Broad St
Bridgeton, NJ 08302
Phone: 856.874.4443
county best pa pennsylvania reviews south jersey berks northhampton montgomery bucks lehigh valley gloucester burlington mercer