Showing 3 posts in Receiverships.
This case affirms that, absent an abuse of discretion, the Court of Chancery will defer to a sale agreement proffered and negotiated by a Court-appointed liquidating trustee. In this case, the Court had appointed the liquidating trustee (the “Trustee”) after granting judicial dissolution of a Delaware LLC due to member deadlock. At the last minute, and following a six-month sale process, a bidder that was owned by two of the LLC’s members made an offer that the Trustee rejected as untimely and inadequate. The bidder challenged the Trustee’s judgment in rejecting its bid. The Court upheld the Trustee’s decision to reject the bid, finding no evidence of an abuse of discretion. More ›Share
Delaware Supreme Court Finds Limited Liability Partnership Agreement Chose the “Aggregate Model” and Partner Withdrawal Caused Dissolution
In this case, the Delaware Supreme Court answered three certified questions from the United States Third Circuit Court of Appeals concerning the effect of a partner’s withdrawal from a Delaware limited liability partnership formed to prosecute a qui tam action. The Court ruled that unambiguous language in the Partnership Agreement opting out of the “entity model” of partnership provided in the Delaware Revised Uniform Partnership Act meant that the partner’s withdrawal dissolved the partnership (Question 1). The Court also held that the entity that was continuing litigation through an amended complaint after the partner’s withdrawal was a new and different partnership (Question 2). Moreover, because the old entity dissolved at such an early point in the litigation, and because the partners had formed it solely to prosecute the litigation, the old partnership could not continue the litigation because to do so was inconsistent with the agreement’s requirements for a prompt liquidation (Question 3). More ›Share
The Court of Chancery may appoint a receiver to wind up a deadlocked corporate entity. When that happens, the corporation normally pays the receiver’s fees and expenses. Here, however, the entity was insolvent and unable to pay, and the Petitioner (a 50% owner) opposed contributing to the payment of certain expenses. More ›Share