August 22, 2014
August 21, 2014
August 20, 2014
Delaware Supreme Court Rejects Chancery Court's Determination that Default Fiduciary Duties Apply to All LLC Members
The Delaware Supreme Court ultimately affirmed the ruling of the Delaware Chancery Court in finding the manager of an LLC in violation of his contractual fiduciary duties, but while doing so it took pains to reject as unnecessary the Chancery Court’s decision that default fiduciary duties apply to all LLC members under the Delaware Limited Liability Corporation Act (Delaware LLC Act).
Peconic Bay, LLC (Peconic Bay), a limited liability company formed to hold a long-term lease and to develop a golf course, appointed as its manager Gatz Properties, which is managed, controlled and partially owned by William Gatz (Gatz). As a sublease held by Peconic Bay was nearing its end, Gatz was approached by a third party interested in acquiring Peconic Bay’s long-term lease. Despite several attempts by the third party, Gatz refused to negotiate. Instead, Gatz arranged for Peconic Bay to be sold to himself at an unfair price in a flawed auction, violating his contractual fiduciary duties as a manager of the LLC.
The Delaware Supreme Court upheld the Chancery Court’s ultimate decision that Gatz violated his fiduciary duties, but only on contractual grounds. It wholly rejected the Chancery Court’s conclusion that the Delaware LLC Act imposes default fiduciary duties on LLC members. The Delaware Supreme Court held that “reasonable minds could differ” on whether such default fiduciary duties were imposed by the Delaware LLC Act, and thus the Court of Chancery should not have reached that question when a contractual duty clearly existed.
Gatz Properties, LLC v. Auriga Capital Corporation, No. 11-1937-cv (Del. Nov. 7, 2012).
<span class="advertise"> Advertisement </span>
- Ninth Circuit Finds No Tag Jurisdiction Over Foreign Corporation
- In re: BP p.l.c. Securities Litigation - Texas Federal District Court
- Amendment to Delaware Judicial Procedure Law Permits Parties to Extend Statute of Limitations for Breach of Contract Claims
- District Court Clarifies Statute of Repose Timeline in Material Misstatement Case
- Supreme Court Rejects “Presumption of Prudence,” Adopts New Pleading Standards in Fifth Third Bancorp v. Dudenhoeffer
- Using Summaries of Information Both Offensively and Defensively in Discovery