In Re the Judicial Dissolution of Kemp & Beatley, Inc.
64 N.Y.2d 63 (1984)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
In a closely held corporation, conduct by the majority shareholders that substantially defeats the reasonable expectations of minority shareholders, which were central to their decision to invest, constitutes 'oppressive actions' under New York Business Corporation Law § 1104-a, justifying judicial dissolution.
Facts:
- Kemp & Beatley, Inc. is a closely held corporation that designs and manufactures table linens.
- Petitioners Dissin and Gardstein were long-time employees who had acquired minority stock ownership in the company over several decades, together holding 20.33% of the outstanding shares.
- Throughout their employment, the company had a consistent and long-standing policy of distributing corporate earnings to shareholders based on their stock ownership, often characterized as 'extra compensation' or bonuses, which served as de facto dividends.
- Dissin resigned in 1979, and Gardstein's employment was terminated in 1980.
- After petitioners' employment with the company ceased, the majority shareholders altered the policy for distributing corporate earnings.
- The new policy based these payments solely on services rendered to the corporation, effectively excluding the non-employee petitioners from receiving any return on their investment and rendering their stock valueless as a source of income.
Procedural Posture:
- Dissin and Gardstein, holding 20.33% of the company's stock, filed a petition in New York Supreme Court (the trial court of first instance) seeking judicial dissolution of Kemp & Beatley, Inc. pursuant to Business Corporation Law § 1104-a.
- The Supreme Court referred the matter to a referee for a hearing.
- The referee found the majority's policies had rendered petitioners' shares worthless and recommended dissolution.
- The Supreme Court confirmed the referee's report, ordering dissolution conditioned on the corporation being given an opportunity to purchase the petitioners' shares.
- The corporation, as appellant, appealed the decision to the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court (an intermediate appellate court).
- The Appellate Division affirmed the trial court's order without a written opinion.
- The corporation appealed to the New York Court of Appeals (the state's highest court).
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 change in corporate policy by majority shareholders that eliminates de facto dividends for minority shareholders, contrary to a long-standing practice and their reasonable expectations, constitute 'oppressive actions' justifying judicial dissolution of a closely held corporation under New York Business Corporation Law § 1104-a?
Opinions:
Majority - Chief Judge Cooke
Yes, such a policy change constitutes oppressive action. The court holds that 'oppressive actions' under Business Corporation Law § 1104-a refer to conduct that substantially defeats the reasonable expectations held by minority shareholders in committing their capital to the enterprise. In a close corporation, shareholders often expect employment and a return on investment through salary and profit distributions, as their stock is not readily salable. Here, petitioners had a reasonable expectation, based on a long-standing corporate policy, that they would receive a return on their investment based on stock ownership. By changing this policy to exclude non-employee shareholders, the majority frustrated petitioners' central and reasonable expectations, effectively freezing them out and rendering their investment worthless. Because relations had completely deteriorated and the majority offered no alternative remedy, dissolution, conditioned on a buyout option, is an appropriate remedy to protect the minority's interests.
Analysis:
This landmark decision establishes the 'reasonable expectations' test for determining oppressive conduct against minority shareholders in New York's closely held corporations. It shifts the legal focus from the majority's intent (e.g., malice or bad faith) to the objective impact of their actions on the minority's investment expectations. This provides a crucial remedy for minority shareholders who are 'frozen out' of a return on their illiquid investment. The case solidifies a powerful protection for investors in small corporations where the lines between shareholder, director, and employee are often blurred, ensuring that their foundational expectations for participating in the venture are legally protected.
Unlock the full brief for In Re the Judicial Dissolution of Kemp & Beatley, Inc.