Bonavita v. Corbo
1996 N.J. Super. LEXIS 512, 300 N.J. Super. 179, 692 A.2d 119 (1996)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
In a closely-held corporation, oppressive conduct occurs when those in control frustrate a minority or co-equal shareholder's reasonable expectations, such as receiving a return on their investment. A policy that benefits the controlling shareholders through corporate employment while providing no benefit to other shareholders can constitute oppression, even if facially justified by the business judgment rule.
Facts:
- Alan Corbo and Gerald Bonavita each owned 50% of the stock in Corbo Jewelers, Inc., a closely-held corporation.
- Alan Corbo served as president and chief executive officer, and the corporation employed his wife and three sons, who collectively earned substantial compensation.
- Gerald Bonavita, who was less active in management, retired in 1991 due to declining health.
- The corporation continued to pay Bonavita his salary until his death in 1994, after which all payments to his estate or his widow, Julia Bonavita, ceased.
- The corporation, despite having over $5 million in retained earnings and significant cash on hand, maintained a steadfast 'no-dividend' policy, which Alan Corbo justified as a sound business decision.
- Gerald Bonavita, and later his widow, requested that the corporation either pay a substantial dividend or purchase the Bonavita family's stock.
- Alan Corbo rejected both the dividend and buyout requests, leaving Julia Bonavita with a 50% stock interest that provided no financial benefit.
Procedural Posture:
- Gerald Bonavita sued Alan Corbo and Corbo Jewelers, Inc. in the New Jersey Superior Court, Chancery Division (trial court), alleging shareholder oppression and deadlock.
- Pursuant to statute, the court appointed a provisional director to function while the litigation was pending.
- Gerald Bonavita died before trial, and his executrix and widow, Julia Bonavita, continued the suit on behalf of his estate.
- During the proceedings, Bonavita formally requested a dividend, which was denied by Alan Corbo with the provisional director abstaining.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a controlling shareholder in a closely-held corporation commit oppression by refusing to pay dividends or buy out a co-equal shareholder's interest, when that refusal effectively renders the co-shareholder's stock worthless while the controlling shareholder and their family receive substantial benefits through corporate employment?
Opinions:
Majority - Lesemann, J.S.C.
Yes. A controlling shareholder's refusal to pay dividends or offer a buyout, while they and their family extract value through salaries, constitutes oppression because it frustrates the other shareholder's reasonable expectation of gaining a return on their investment. The court found that a 50% shareholder who lacks effective power can be treated as a 'minority shareholder' under the oppression statute because the analysis focuses on the abusive exercise of power, not a mechanistic count of stock percentages. Although Alan Corbo's 'no-dividend' policy could be defended under the business judgment rule, its effect was to benefit only the Corbo family through employment while rendering the Bonavita stock completely valueless. This violates the reasonable expectations of a shareholder, which include receiving some form of return on their investment. The court concluded that such conduct, which destroys a shareholder's vital interests, is the essence of oppression, regardless of whether it is fraudulent or illegal. Finding no lesser remedy adequate to resolve the inherent conflict, the court ordered a compulsory buyout of the Bonavita stock.
Analysis:
This case solidifies the 'reasonable expectations' test as the standard for shareholder oppression in New Jersey's closely-held corporations. It clarifies that conduct need not be illegal or fraudulent to be oppressive; actions that systematically frustrate a shareholder's fundamental expectation of a return on investment are sufficient. The decision significantly limits the defensive power of the business judgment rule in oppression cases, establishing that the rule cannot shield a policy whose practical effect is to disproportionately benefit one shareholder group at the complete expense of another, effectively locking the latter into a valueless asset.
Unlock the full brief for Bonavita v. Corbo