close

Blogs > Shareholder Disputes in New Jersey

What Constitutes Oppression

Jun 28, 2021

New Jersey Shareholder Oppression: Mismanagement

Often a minority shareholder will seek to sue for a business divorce because they believe their business partner is stealing from them. But there are many things your business partner could be doing that could potentially harm the company short of stealing money from it – including making horrible business decisions and mismanagement of the company. » Read More

Feb 25, 2020

Hidden Competition: A Common Form of Oppression

If you are a passive investor in a closely-held business, there are many things from which you need to protect yourself. In New Jersey, these can include excessive salaries and bonuses, personal expenses being run through the company, cash transactions never making their way onto the books, and relatives on the payroll in no-show jobs. » Read More

Feb 22, 2018

Business Owner Rights: What Every Shareholder Should Know

David C. Roberts, a Member of Norris McLaughlin, P.A., is pleased to present a seminar for all business owners that will answer many of the questions, both known and unknown, a shareholder would have, such as:
  • What, exactly, is “shareholder oppression?”
» Read More

Sep 29, 2017

Shareholder Oppression: What Every Business Owner Should Know

David C. Roberts, a Member with Norris McLaughlin, P.A., is pleased to present a seminar for all business owners that will answer many of the questions, both known and unknown, a shareholder would have, such as:

  • What, exactly, is “shareholder oppression?”
» Read More

May 23, 2017

Minority Shareholder Oppression Damages in New Jersey: More Than Just a Buyout?

As I have said many times in this blog, when minority shareholder oppression occurs, the most likely remedy is a buyout.  In other words, courts in New Jersey have the power to compel the majority shareholder to pay “fair value” to an oppressed minority shareholder so the victim of wrongdoing is not forced to remain captive as a shareholder in a company that is treating him improperly.  » Read More

Feb 16, 2017

How An Employee/Shareholder Can Protect Oneself Against Oppression

Because termination of one’s employment does not necessarily equate to shareholder oppression under New Jersey law, as seen in my last post, it is often a good idea to take proactive measures to inoculate yourself against a termination that leaves you in the company as a shareholder, but not as an employee.  » Read More

May 31, 2015

Shareholder Oppression May Be Easier to Prove Than You Think – Which Should Worry Majority Shareholders

While most of my posts on this blog look at shareholder dispute issues from the perspective of the oppressed minority shareholder, I have represented numerous companies defending shareholder litigation, as well.  One corporate client  recently wanted to know how to avoid such litigation if the shareholder agreement has been long-ago agreed to, and there is little that can be done to get near-warring parties to agree to anything in writing.  » Read More

Feb 18, 2015

LLC Members Have Equal Rights as Corporate Shareholders When It Comes To Minority Owner Oppression

Many times a law is enacted, but a judge or appellate court makes a decision that casts the interpretation of that law into chaos. (Of course, none of the judges I regularly appear before would ever do this.) Almost one year ago, the New Jersey LLC Act was amended to give LLC members the minority owner oppression remedies historically applied to shareholders of a corporation. » Read More

Mar 26, 2014

Unnecessary Capital Call as Means of Dilution Can Be Shareholder Oppression

When majority shareholders want to force a minority owner out of the company, there are a variety of means for doing so. One of the most popular methods is the unnecessary capital call.

One recent case involved a client who was a part owner of a corporation that seemed, on the surface, to be in need of money. » Read More

Nov 20, 2013

Termination of LLC Member Employee Could Soon Be Considered “Oppression”

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