New jersey shareholder protection act

Legal Analysis. Expertly Written. Quickly Found.

Trending News

HB Ad Slot HB Mobile Ad Slot

Norris McLaughlin P.A.

David C. Roberts Member New Jersey fraud, fraudulent transfers, trade secret, restrictive covenant litigation, employment litigation, environmental matters, and insurance coverage litigation.

Email 908-252-4205 HB Ad Slot The New Jersey Minority Shareholder Oppression Statute Covers More Than Just Oppression Tuesday, August 8, 2023

corporate investigations

Related Practices & Jurisdictions

I have written recently about how broad the New Jersey shareholder oppression statute is, and how it encompasses more than what a court would consider “oppressive” conduct. The statute also mentions “mismanagement,” a concept I covered in my blog “Focus on the Relief, Not the Label” from December 2022. Courts often do not want to get involved in second-guessing management decisions and deciding what mismanagement is actionable and which is not. However, mismanagement does happen.

There are times when the mismanagement by those in charge is so palpable that it cannot possibly go unchecked. For example, suppose the majority shareholder does not take a business opportunity for himself, but instead provides it to another employee who happens to be a friend at the exclusion of the minority shareholders. If no “kickback” to the majority can be shown, it may be difficult to argue that the majority shareholder benefitted. And if the decision hurt everyone equally, including the majority shareholders, it might not be considered “oppression” under the statutory definition (although the better argument is that it still would). But such a move certainly could be deemed “mismanagement.”

Other types of wrongdoing under the statute that might not be directed specifically toward a minority shareholder include taking illegal actions such as improper tax filings or the failure to follow other regulations. For example, dumping pollutants into the ground might not only be illegal conduct, but could put the company at such risk that a court will think it unfair to expose a minority shareholder to a lifetime of such incidents.

Of course, not every violation of the statute obligates the court to order the buyout of a minority shareholder. The key is to tell a story of unfairness – unfairness in what has happened to you in the past, and unfairness in leaving you in this company into the future with little-to-no protection – other than a statute that the majority shareholders are quite willing to ignore.

©2024 Norris McLaughlin P.A., All Rights Reserved

Current Public Notices

Published: 30 August, 2024 Published: 30 August, 2024 Published: 28 August, 2024 Published: 27 August, 2024 Published: 26 August, 2024 Published: 19 August, 2024 HB Ad Slot HB Mobile Ad Slot

Current Legal Analysis

HB Ad Slot HB Mobile Ad Slot

More from Norris McLaughlin P.A.

Upcoming Legal Education Events

Practising Law Institute New York

Practising Law Institute New York

Greenberg Traurig, LLP Law Firm

Foley and Lardner LLP Law Firm

HB Ad Slot HB Mobile Ad Slot

We collaborate with the world's leading lawyers to deliver news tailored for you. Sign Up to receive our free e-Newsbulletins

Legal Disclaimer

You are responsible for reading, understanding, and agreeing to the National Law Review's (NLR’s) and the National Law Forum LLC's Terms of Use and Privacy Policy before using the National Law Review website. The National Law Review is a free-to-use, no-log-in database of legal and business articles. The content and links on www.NatLawReview.com are intended for general information purposes only. Any legal analysis, legislative updates, or other content and links should not be construed as legal or professional advice or a substitute for such advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship is formed by the transmission of information between you and the National Law Review website or any of the law firms, attorneys, or other professionals or organizations who include content on the National Law Review website. If you require legal or professional advice, kindly contact an attorney or other suitable professional advisor.

Some states have laws and ethical rules regarding solicitation and advertisement practices by attorneys and/or other professionals. The National Law Review is not a law firm nor is www.NatLawReview.com intended to be a referral service for attorneys and/or other professionals. The NLR does not wish, nor does it intend, to solicit the business of anyone or to refer anyone to an attorney or other professional. NLR does not answer legal questions nor will we refer you to an attorney or other professional if you request such information from us.

Under certain state laws, the following statements may be required on this website and we have included them in order to be in full compliance with these rules. The choice of a lawyer or other professional is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements. Attorney Advertising Notice: Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Statement in compliance with Texas Rules of Professional Conduct. Unless otherwise noted, attorneys are not certified by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, nor can NLR attest to the accuracy of any notation of Legal Specialization or other Professional Credentials.

The National Law Review - National Law Forum LLC 2070 Green Bay Rd., Suite 178, Highland Park, IL 60035 Telephone (708) 357-3317 or toll-free (877) 357-3317. If you would like to contact us via email please click here.

Copyright ©2024 National Law Forum, LLC