For Your Data Smith V. Atlantic Properties, Inc. Example Brief
May 03, 2015
Edit
Smith v. Atlantic Properties, Inc. case brief summary
422 N.E.2d 798 (Mass.App.Ct. 1982)
CASE FACTS
Defendant shareholder used his veto ability to preclude plaintiffs, all other shareholders, from declaring dividends inwards accused unopen corporation. In consequence, the regime assessed taxation penalties against accused corporation. Plaintiffs requested lower courtroom to arrive at upwards one's heed dividends to travel paid, to take away accused shareholder every bit a director, in addition to to gild him to reimburse accused corporation for penalization taxes assessed against it. The lower courtroom ordered accused corporation to pay dividends in addition to accused shareholder to reimburse corporation for penalization taxes, in addition to it retained jurisdiction.
DISCUSSION
CONCLUSION
The courtroom affirmed the lower court's judgment because accused shareholder's purpose of his veto ability every bit minority shareholder to preclude whatsoever annunciation of dividends violated his fiduciary duty to plaintiff shareholders.
Recommended Supplements for Corporations in addition to Business Associations Law
422 N.E.2d 798 (Mass.App.Ct. 1982)
CASE SYNOPSIS
Defendant shareholder in addition to accused corporation appealed judgment of the Superior Court (Massachusetts) for plaintiff shareholders inwards activity to arrive at upwards one's heed dividends to travel paid past times accused corporation, to take away accused shareholder every bit a director, in addition to to gild that accused shareholder reimburse accused corporation for penalization taxes assessed against it.CASE FACTS
Defendant shareholder used his veto ability to preclude plaintiffs, all other shareholders, from declaring dividends inwards accused unopen corporation. In consequence, the regime assessed taxation penalties against accused corporation. Plaintiffs requested lower courtroom to arrive at upwards one's heed dividends to travel paid, to take away accused shareholder every bit a director, in addition to to gild him to reimburse accused corporation for penalization taxes assessed against it. The lower courtroom ordered accused corporation to pay dividends in addition to accused shareholder to reimburse corporation for penalization taxes, in addition to it retained jurisdiction.
DISCUSSION
- On appeal, the courtroom affirmed. Shareholders inwards a unopen corporation owe i around other a fiduciary duty.
- The bulk shareholders inwards a unopen corporation may enquire judicial protection from a minority shareholder who acts oppressively.
- Defendant shareholder's actions exceeded what was reasonable.
- The lower courtroom mightiness retain jurisdiction to straight the dividend policy until parties agreed on their ain program.
CONCLUSION
The courtroom affirmed the lower court's judgment because accused shareholder's purpose of his veto ability every bit minority shareholder to preclude whatsoever annunciation of dividends violated his fiduciary duty to plaintiff shareholders.
Recommended Supplements for Corporations in addition to Business Associations Law