logo
Google Reviews Logo

317.636.6481

One Indiana Square, Suite 1400 Indianapolis, Indiana 46204

Make a Payment
logo
CONTACT US
CALL US
  • Home
  • Firm Overview
  • Our Attorneys
  • Practice Areas
    • Pharmaceutical Drug & Medical Device Litigation
    • Personal Injury
    • Sexual Abuse
    • Class Action
    • Medical Malpractice
    • Eminent Domain
    • Family Law
    • Business Services, Real Estate & Business Litigation
    • Bankruptcy, Creditor’s Rights, & Commercial & Business Law
    • Appellate Law
  • Firm News
    • News & Announcements
    • Alerts
  • Resources
    • Video Library
    • Blog
  • Contact Us
Google Reviews Logo

317.636.6481

One Indiana Square, Suite 1400 Indianapolis, Indiana 46204

Make a Payment
  • Home
  • Firm Overview
  • Our Attorneys
  • Practice Areas
    • Pharmaceutical Drug & Medical Device Litigation
    • Personal Injury
    • Sexual Abuse
    • Class Action
    • Medical Malpractice
    • Eminent Domain
    • Family Law
    • Business Services, Real Estate & Business Litigation
    • Bankruptcy, Creditor’s Rights, & Commercial & Business Law
    • Appellate Law
  • Firm News
    • News & Announcements
    • Alerts
  • Resources
    • Video Library
    • Blog
  • Contact Us

Home » Blog » When can a direct action be brought in the context of a closely held company?

When can a direct action be brought in the context of a closely held company?

By: Arend J. Abel, Attorney

On June 1, the Indiana Court of Appeals addressed the circumstances in which a shareholder in a closely held limited liability company could sue another shareholder for breach of fiduciary duty arising out of alleged mismanagement of the corporation.   Ordinarily, such actions must be brought derivatively, but the Court noted that Indiana law provides an exception in some circumstances.

Typically, a claim of corporate mismanagement involves harm to the corporation, and as such must be brought derivatively.  However, the policies requiring a derivative action are the protection of third party shareholders and creditors.  Under Barth v. Barth, 659 N.E.2d 559 (Ind. 1995), where those policies are not implicated, a derivative action is not required.

Thus, in  Bioconvergence, LLC v. Menefree, the Court of Appeals found that a direct action against a majority shareholder in a closely-held limited liability was permissible, or at least non-frivolous, because the only shareholder other than the plaintiff was the defendant, and there were no creditors.

A direct action by a shareholder against a fellow shareholder may be the only effective remedy for a minority shareholder in situations where a majority shareholder is either mismanaging a business or siphoning off funds.  A derivative action contains a number of procedural hurdles.  Importantly, with derivative actions, the corporation may take over a derivative action, form an independent litigation committee, and on the recommendation of that committee dismiss the action, leaving a minority shareholder without a remedy.

One Indiana Square Suite 1400
Indianapolis, Indiana 46204

Copyright ©  Cohen & Malad, LLP. All rights reserved.

Disclaimer  |  Privacy Policy

 

Schedule a free consultation Today
  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Schedule a free consultation Today

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

ALERTS

Former NFL Players Still Have Time to Claim Concussion Settlement Funds

It’s not too late for former National Football League players to claim their funds from the concussion .. Read More

SEE ALL ALERTS

In the News

Indiana Legal Services and Indiana State Bar Foundation Receive $90,000 donation from Cohen & Malad, LLP Class Action United Way of Central Indiana’s Center for Working Families Receives $32,000 from Cohen & Malad, LLP Settlement Funds Indianapolis Neighborhood Housing Partnership Receives $32,000 from Cohen & Malad, LLP Settlement Funds
READ OUR NEWS