Source: https://boatmanricci.com/the-business-divorce/
Timestamp: 2020-08-11 04:41:37
Document Index: 654084919

Matched Legal Cases: ['§607', '§607', '§607', '§607', '§607', '§620', '§605']

THE BUSINESS DIVORCE - Boatman Ricci
Over the years, I have often been called upon to represent business owners who for one reason or another have come to the point where they need to end their relationship with the co-owner of their business.
Whether the relationship is in the form of partnership, corporation or limited liability company, the approach to be adopted is basically the same. These type matters are often termed “business divorces”. At the end of the day, it is the lawyer’s job to strategize so that the client is treated fairly and ends up with the ability to continue his/her career or is paid enough money for his/her share of the business. The tactics to achieve this goal are, of course, critical. I have successfully pursued dozens of these matters for a variety of businessmen including dentists, lawyers, physicians, a communications company, restaurateur, distribution company, construction company, auto dealership and a beer and wine distributorship.
The first step for the attorney representing one of the owners is to identify what rights are given to the owner by existing law. For instance, in a corporate form, there are statutory rights to annual meetings (F.S. §607.0701), shareholder votes (F.S. §607.0721) and periodic accounting statements (F.S. §607.1620). Often, in closely held companies these rights have been ignored for years and beg to be enforced. Often, a violation of a shareholder’s rights can be triggered by a broad, comprehensive request to examine corporate records under F.S. §607.1602. Certain corporate records must be maintained (F.S. §607.1601). There are similar statutory requirements for partnerships (e.g. F.S. §620.8403) and LLC’s (e.g. F.S. §605.0410). There may be rights created by a shareholder or partnership agreement and in an LLC there are rights created by the operating agreement. In all business entities, each owner is protected by his counterpart’s fiduciary duty not to “steal” or to act selfishly in derogation of the benefits accorded to the other owners. E.g. Biltmore Motor Corp. v. Roque, 291 So.2d 114, 115 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974)(corporate seeing) McCoy v. Durden, Case No. 1D13-2113, (1st Fla. DCA December 31, 2014).
A temporary restraining order or temporary injunction is the best bet to force the defendant to the negotiating table. To file such a claim, however, the cause of action must be one that meets the criteria for injunctive relief. Fla. Rule of Civ. Pro. 1.610. For instance irreparable harm arises when one is excluded from corporate governance or is denied a statutory right. The threat of repeated wrongs into the future can be argued to mean there is no adequate remedy at law because the amount of future damage is currently un-quantifiable. The expansion of the business or improper contact with new customers cannot be expressed in dollars and cents because of the immeasurable long term effects. Whatever openings the facts of a particular case present, it is essential to frame the cause of action in a way that justifies a claim for equitable relief on an emergency basis.
Of Counsel, Boatman Ricci