Tzolis v. Wolff
10 N.Y.3d 100, 884 N.E.2d 1005, 855 N.Y.S.2d 6 (2008)
Rule of Law:
Members of a limited liability company (LLC) may bring derivative suits on the LLC’s behalf, relying on long-standing common law and equitable principles, even in the absence of explicit statutory authorization in the Limited Liability Company Law.
Facts:
- Pennington Property Co. LLC was the owner of a Manhattan apartment building.
- Plaintiffs own 25% of the membership interests in Pennington Property Co. LLC.
- Those in control of the LLC, and others acting in concert with them, allegedly arranged to lease and then sell the LLC’s principal asset for sums below market value.
- The plaintiffs claim the lease was unlawfully assigned.
- Plaintiffs allege that company fiduciaries personally benefited from the sale.
- Plaintiffs asserted causes of action, including seeking to declare the sale void and terminate the lease.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiffs brought an action 'individually and in the right and on behalf of' Pennington Property Co. LLC in Supreme Court.
- The Supreme Court dismissed the first two causes of action (seeking to declare the sale void and terminate the lease).
- The Supreme Court held that the causes of action could not be brought individually and that New York law did not permit derivative actions for LLCs.
- The Appellate Division reversed the Supreme Court's dismissal, concluding that derivative suits on behalf of LLCs are permitted.
- Two defendants (appellants) were granted permission to appeal to the Court of Appeals on a certified question.
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 New York law permit members of a limited liability company (LLC) to bring derivative actions on the LLC's behalf, despite the absence of explicit statutory authorization in the Limited Liability Company Law?
Opinions:
Majority - Smith, J.
Yes, New York law permits members of a limited liability company (LLC) to bring derivative actions on the LLC's behalf, even without explicit statutory authorization. The Court holds that the omission of provisions governing derivative suits in the Limited Liability Company Law does not imply such suits are prohibited. This decision is based on the long-recognized importance of the derivative suit in corporate law, which originated in case law as an equitable remedy (e.g., Robinson v Smith for corporations, Klebanow v New York Produce Exch. and Riviera Congress Assoc. v Yassky for limited partnerships) and ensures recourse when fiduciaries betray their duty. The Court analogizes LLC members to beneficiaries of a trust (cestui que trust). The legislative history surrounding the deletion of a proposed 'Derivative Actions' article from the LLC Law is deemed too ambiguous to infer a legislative intent to abolish this fundamental, centuries-old protection, which would be a radical step leading to 'an intolerable grievance.' The Court concludes that without a clear legislative mandate to the contrary, the established common law and equitable principles apply.
Dissenting - Read, J.
No, New York law does not permit members of a limited liability company (LLC) to bring derivative actions on the LLC's behalf, because the Legislature explicitly considered and rejected provisions authorizing such suits when enacting the Limited Liability Company Law. The dissent argues that the legislative history reveals a conscious 'legislative bargain' to omit derivative action provisions, particularly due to Senate resistance. Unlike in Klebanow, where there was no indication the Legislature focused on the issue, here the omission was a deliberate policy choice. The dissent notes that the Partnership Law, under which derivative suits were recognized, contained a 'rules for cases not covered' provision allowing for common law and equity, a provision absent from the LLC Law. The dissent criticizes the majority for 'judicially legislating a cause of action' that was rejected by the Legislature, and for creating a right 'unfettered by the prudential safeguards' found in statutes for other business entities.
Analysis:
This case establishes a significant precedent for judicial activism in statutory interpretation, demonstrating the New York Court of Appeals' willingness to infer remedies based on common law and equitable principles to fill perceived legislative gaps. It ensures that LLC members, like shareholders and limited partners, have recourse against fiduciary misconduct, preventing a potential 'license to steal' for those in control of LLCs. While providing a necessary check on corporate governance, the decision leaves open the question of what procedural safeguards (e.g., demand requirements, security for expenses) will apply to LLC derivative suits, potentially leading to further litigation to define these parameters. The outcome highlights a tension between strict textualism and dynamic judicial interpretation of legislative intent, particularly for new business forms.
