RECENT CASES INVOLVING LIMITED LIABILITY …

1 RECENT CASES INVOLVINGLIMITED LIABILITY COMPANIES ANDLIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIPSE lizabeth S. MillerProfessor of LawBaylor UniversitySchool of LawWaco, TexasALI-ABA LIMITED LIABILITY Entities 2008 March 19, 2008 2008 Elizabeth S. Miller, All Rights ReservediiTable of LIABILITY LIABILITY of LIABILITY Jurisdiction Over Members and of to Se of of of LLC/Failure to Form Inducement to Form LIABILITY of LLC Members and Managers/Personal LIABILITY Under Agency or Veil of Members and of Property/Interest of Duties of Members and and Access to of Operating of Interest/Buy-Out of Contributions and Contribution of , Expulsion, or Termination of and Winding or Administrative LLC - Failure to Qualify to Do LLCs - Constitutionality of Fee or LLC Governing of s s and Local Law/Statutory Business Practices of , Merger, of Sole Member of Disregarded LLC for Employment Taxes .. Member LLC and Privilege Against Self LIABILITY , Client CASES INVOLVING LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANIES AND LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIPSBy Elizabeth S.

2 MillerFebruary, 2008 This paper summarizes CASES that have appeared since the LIMITED LIABILITY Entities 2007 program. Acumulative survey of LLP and LLC CASES may be accessed at the Baylor Law School web site at LIABILITY JurisdictionThompson v. Deloitte & Touche LLP, 503 1118 ( Iowa 2007). The court held that an LLP scitizenship is determined by the citizenship of all partners and that the presence of one stateless partner thus renderedthe partnership stateless and destroyed diversity jurisdiction. Further, even if the stateless partner were excluded fromconsideration, partners who were not United States citizens destroyed diversity jurisdiction because there were also alienplaintiffs in the case , and diversity jurisdiction cannot be maintained where aliens are on opposite sides of an LIABILITY of PartnersEderer v. Gursky, __ __, 2007 WL 4438937 ( 2007). A withdrawn partner sued the partnershipand its partners for breach of contract and an accounting of funds owed the withdrawn partner under a withdrawalagreement between the partner and the partnership.

3 The partners claimed that they did not have personal LIABILITY becausethe partnership was an LLP, but the court concluded that the New York LLP LIABILITY shield only applies to debts andliabilities to third parties and does not protect partners from LIABILITY for obligations of the partnership to other partnersnor eliminate the right to an accounting. The New York LLP provisions state that [e]xcept as provided by subdivisions(c) and (d) of this section, no partner of a partnership which is a registered LIMITED LIABILITY partnership is liable oraccountable, directly or indirectly (including by way of indemnification, contribution or otherwise), for any debts,obligations or liabilities of, or chargeable to, the registered LIMITED LIABILITY partnership or each other, whether arisingin tort, contract or otherwise, which are incurred, created or assumed by such partnership while such partnership is aregistered LIMITED LIABILITY partnership, solely by reason of being such a partner.

4 Subdivision (c) excludes from theliability shield any negligent or wrongful act or misconduct committed by [a partner] or by any person under his or herdirect supervision and control while rendering professional services on behalf of the LLP. Subdivision (d) allowspartners to opt out of or limit the scope of the LIABILITY protection. The court reviewed the background and history of LLPlegislation and rejected the defendants argument that the statutory protection from LIABILITY for any debts applies todebts of the partnership to the partners as well as debts to third parties. The court concluded that the LIABILITY protectionunder the LLP provisions is restricted to LIABILITY to third parties because the phrase any debts is part of a provisionthat has always governed only a partner s LIABILITY to third parties and is part of Article 3 of the New York UniformPartnership Act ( Relations of Partners to Persons Dealing with the Partnership ) rather than Article 4 ( Relations ofPartners to One Another ).

5 The court also rejected the defendants two arguments reconciling the right to an accountingin a winding up with their interpretation of the LLP provisions. The defendants argued that their fiduciary duty aspartners to account to one another is different from personal LIABILITY for debts disclosed by an accounting, and theyfurther argued that a partner is only personally liable for debts disclosed by an accounting that are attributable to thatpartner s own torts or wrongful conduct or supervisory lapses. The court responded that the right to an accounting isrestitutionary in nature and that it is not LIMITED in the manner argued by the defendants. The court pointed out that thestatute confers a right to an accounting absent an agreement to the contrary and stated that partners may thus limit theright to contribution or indemnity or eliminate it altogether, but the partners in this case had no written partnershipagreement and were governed by the default provisions of the statute as interpreted by the court.

6 The dissenting opinionpointed out that a former partner is a third party where a partnership is concerned and argued that there is no good reasonto treat him more favorably than any other third party. The dissenting opinion describes how the majority s approach2results in odd and perverse results where a withdrawn partner is able to hold remaining partners personally liable for hisshare when the business of a partnership goes badly after the partner withdraws and before the partner is paid his , Inc. v. Christensen, Miller, Fink, Jacobs, Glaser, Weil & Shapiro, LLP, 150 384 (Cal. Dist. 2007) (commenting that individual partners in LLP are not vicariously liable for partnership obligations that donot arise from their personal misconduct or guarantees).City of Bridgeport v. Fucci, Inc., No. X03CV065008250S, 2007 WL 1120537 (Conn. Super. March 28,2007) (stating that partner in LLP may be held liable for his or her own negligence but other partners may not be heldliable for that partner s negligence simply because they are both members of the partnership).

7 Campbell v. Lichtenfels, No. CV44005066S, 2007 WL 447919 (Conn. Super. Jan. 26, 2007) (imposingpersonal LIABILITY on partner for malpractice claim against partnership in absence of proof that partnership filed certificateof LIMITED LIABILITY partnership with Secretary of State). LawsSecurities and Exchange Commission v. Merchant Capital, LLC, 483 787 (11 Cir. 2007). In thisthsecurities enforcement action brought by the SEC against the managing general partner (and its two individual principals)of 28 Colorado LLPs formed to purchase and collect debt pools of charged-off consumer debt, the Eleventh Circuit Courtof Appeals reversed the district court and held that the general partnership interests sold to the investors were securitiesunder the federal securities laws. The district court applied the Howey test and concluded that the partners had legalpowers to control the partnership and were not so inexperienced or unknowledgeable in business affairs as to beincapable of intelligently exercising their partnership powers.

8 The court of appeals also applied the Howey test, butreached a different conclusion. The court described in detail the structure and operations of the partnerships. Each LLPwas LIMITED to 20 partners. The investors all had a net worth of at least $250,000, and more than three-fourths of thepartners reported a net worth in excess of $500,000. Though none of the partners had demonstrated experience in thedebt purchasing business, ninety percent of the partners self-reported their business experience between average and excellent. The partnership materials told the partners that they were expected to have an active role in managing thepartnership, and the agreement reserved a number of powers to the partners, including the ability to select and removethe managing general partner. In practice, however, the partners exercised little control over the operations. Themanaging general partner had sole authority to bind the partnership and made the key business decisions.

9 Applying theHowey test and relying on the Williamson case , the court concluded that the LLP interests were investment court avoided deciding whether the Williamson presumption that general partnership interests are not securitiesapplies in the case of LLPs since it found that the interests were securities under the Williamson criteria. Noting that thepowers in an LLP cannot exceed those in a regular general partnership, and commenting that an LLP interest may besomewhat more likely to be an investment contract because of the incentive against exercising control produced by theliability shield, the court stated that it need not decide the general applicability of the Williamson presumption to LLPinterests if any of the Williamson tests were met. Under Williamson, a general partnership interest is an investmentcontract if (1) the agreement between the parties leaves so little power in the hands of the partner that the arrangementin fact distributes power as would a LIMITED partnership, (2) the partner is so inexperienced and unknowledgeable inbusiness affairs that he is incapable of intelligently exercising his partnership powers, or (3) the partner is so dependenton some unique entrepreneurial or managerial ability of the promoter or manager that he cannot replace the manager orotherwise exercise meaningful partnership powers.

10 The court analyzed each of these tests and concluded that all threewere met. The court found that the arrangement distributed power as if the partnerships were LIMITED partnershipsbecause the power to name the managing partner was not significant, the power to remove the managing partner wasillusory, and the voting procedures giving partners the ability to approve all obligations over $5,000 were a sham anddid not give the partners any meaningful control. The court discounted the fact that one of the partnerships had actuallyremoved the managing partner because the removal occurred in a liquidation context when the managing partner wouldreceive no more fees and did not oppose removal, and the promoters had an active interest at that time in encouragingremoval because the SEC investigation was in progress. The court did not view the partners remaining powers the rightto inspect books and records, participate in committees, and hold meetings as providing the partners the ability tocontrol management of the business.