Meiselman v. Meiselman
307 S.E.2d 551, 309 N.C. 279, 1983 N.C. LEXIS 1394 (1983)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
In a close corporation, a minority shareholder's 'rights or interests' under a shareholder-protection statute include the shareholder's reasonable expectations of benefit from participation in the corporation, such as continued employment and a meaningful role in management. A court may grant equitable relief when those reasonable expectations are frustrated by the controlling shareholder, even without a showing of fraud, mismanagement, or oppression.
Facts:
- Brothers Michael and Ira Meiselman were shareholders in a group of family-owned close corporations developed by their father, H.B. Meiselman.
- Through a series of stock transfers from their father, by 1971 Ira had become the majority shareholder in the primary corporation, Eastern Federal, while Michael held a substantial minority interest in the family enterprises.
- Both brothers were employed by the family businesses for many years, with Michael's involvement dating back to 1956.
- In 1973, Ira formed Republic Management Corporation (Republic), in which he was the sole shareholder, to provide management services to Eastern Federal for a fee.
- After their father's death in 1978, the relationship between the brothers deteriorated, with Michael feeling increasingly excluded from management and decision-making.
- In August 1979, Michael sued Ira, bringing a derivative claim related to Ira's sole ownership of Republic.
- In September 1979, less than a month after the lawsuit was filed, Ira fired Michael from his job, terminated his insurance benefits and corporate credit cards, and demanded repayment of a corporate loan.
Procedural Posture:
- Michael Meiselman sued Ira Meiselman and the corporate defendants in the Superior Court of Mecklenburg County (trial court).
- Michael sought dissolution or alternative equitable relief under N.C.G.S. § 55-125(a)(4) and also brought a shareholder's derivative claim for breach of fiduciary duty.
- The trial court denied both claims, finding no wrongful conduct by Ira.
- Michael Meiselman (appellant) appealed the decision to the North Carolina Court of Appeals.
- The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court on both issues and remanded the case for determination of a remedy.
- Ira Meiselman and the corporate defendants (appellants) appealed to the Supreme Court of North Carolina based on a dissent in the intermediate appellate 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 the phrase 'rights or interests of the complaining shareholder' under N.C.G.S. § 55-125(a)(4) encompass the shareholder's 'reasonable expectations' in a close corporation, such as secure employment and meaningful participation in management, thereby warranting judicial relief when those expectations are frustrated?
Opinions:
Majority - Frye, J.
Yes. A minority shareholder's 'rights or interests' in a close corporation under N.C.G.S. § 55-125(a)(4) are not limited to traditional shareholder rights like voting or receiving dividends, but broadly include the shareholder's 'reasonable expectations' arising from their participation in the venture. The court reasoned that close corporations are functionally similar to 'incorporated partnerships,' where participants reasonably expect benefits like employment and a role in management. Because minority shareholders in such entities lack a public market to sell their shares, they are vulnerable to 'freeze-out' tactics by the majority. The statute was intended to provide a remedy for this vulnerability. The trial court erred by applying a standard of 'oppression' or 'bad faith' instead of determining Michael's reasonable expectations and whether they were frustrated. Therefore, the case must be remanded for the trial court to apply the new 'reasonable expectations' analysis.
Concurring - Martin, J.
The author concurred in the result to remand the case but wrote separately to emphasize additional factors the trial court should consider. The concurring opinion argues that the analysis must also account for the conduct of the complaining shareholder (Michael) and whether he was at fault for the frustration of his own expectations. The court should also balance the interests of all shareholders, not just the complainant, and consider the potential burden that any remedy, such as a forced buyout, would impose on the corporation. While oppression is not the sole test, it remains a relevant factor in the overall equitable analysis.
Analysis:
This decision marked a significant development in corporate law for North Carolina, establishing the 'reasonable expectations' doctrine for protecting minority shareholders in close corporations. By moving away from a strict requirement to prove egregious conduct like fraud or oppression, the court provided a more flexible, equitable remedy tailored to the unique nature of closely-held businesses. This precedent empowers courts to look beyond the corporate formalities to the underlying relationship and understandings of the participants, thereby strengthening the position of minority shareholders who risk being 'frozen out' by the majority. The ruling aligns North Carolina with a modern trend in corporate law that recognizes the partnership-like nature of many close corporations.
