What you Need to Consider When Selling a Majority Ownership in a Corporation

Sale of Majority Interest in a CorporationAs discussed in several previous posts (here and here), Iowa law recognizes the existence of fiduciary duties between majority and minority shareholders in Iowa corporations.  See Linge v. Ralston Purina Co., 293 N.W.2d 191, 194 (Iowa 1980); see also Cookies Food Prods., Inc. v. Lakes Warehouse Distrib., Inc., 430 N.W.2d 447, 451 (Iowa 1988).  Often, however, the question is not whether a fiduciary duty exists, but rather, what does the majority-minority fiduciary duty require?  In other words, what action(s) or inaction(s) amount to a violation of the majority-minority fiduciary duty?

On September 3, 2013, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit applied Iowa law to address one unique scenario and answer the following fiduciary-duty question: When a majority shareholder sells all of his/her ownership interests in a corporation, is the majority shareholder required – in discharging his/her fiduciary duties – to notify the minority shareholder of his/her intent to sell the majority interest?  

Answering this legal question, the court noted that the parties failed to identify, and the court was “unable to locate, any Iowa legal authority holding that a majority shareholder must disclose to minority shareholders its intent to sell a controlling stake in a corporation.”  Horras v. Am. Capital Strategies, Ltd., 12-3886, 2013 WL 4711389 (8th Cir. Sept. 3, 2013).  In other words, neither the parties nor the Court were able to find an Iowa case that supported the minority shareholder’s argument that the majority shareholder’s fiduciary duties required him to disclose his intent to sell his majority interest in the corporation.  Unable to find Iowa legal authority on point, the court turned to a well-recognized legal treatise, William Meade Fletcher, Cyclopedia of the Law of Corporations, and stated:

The treatise instructs that majority shareholders are ‘entitled to sell or not sell their stock as they see fit’ and only breach a fiduciary duty to minority shareholders ‘if the purchasers will loot or mismanage the corporation, or if the sale involves fraud, misuse of confidential information, wrongful appropriation of corporate assets, or personal use of a business advantage that rightly belongs to the corporation.’

Horras v. Am. Capital Strategies, Ltd., 12-3886, 2013 WL 4711389 (8th Cir. Sept. 3, 2013) (quoting 12B William Meade Fletcher, Cyclopedia of the Law of Corporations § 5805 (2012).  In short and upon applying Iowa law, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit found that based upon the facts as the minority shareholder set forth within his complaint, the majority shareholder did not breach his fiduciary duty to the minority shareholder by simply electing not to notify the minority shareholder of his intent to sell stock – one may say a prime example of the “art of non-disclosure.”  Assuming the same set of facts and taking into consideration the issues addressed by Fletcher, the court’s finding allows majority shareholders to sell their majority interests in a corporation without notifying a minority shareholder(s) that his/her corporation will likely be run and owned by an entirely different person / entity.

While the court concluded disclosure is not required under the facts of Horras, the court did identify certain circumstances where majority shareholders must proceed with caution when selling their majority ownership interest in a corporation.  Specifically, if the majority shareholder is aware that the sale will result in a purchaser “looting” or “mismanaging” the corporation, then the sale may result in a breach of the majority-minority fiduciary duty.  Similarly, if the majority shareholder’s sale to another involves “fraud,” the “misuse of confidential information,” a “wrongful appropriation of corporate assets,” or the “personal use of a business advantage the rightly belongs to the corporation,” then the sale may result in a breach of the majority-minority fiduciary duty; thereby, entitling the minority shareholder to relief.

A minority shareholder seeking to protect against such an outcome, may very well consider including a provision within the corporation’s bylaws that place certain restrictions and/or notification requirements upon the sale of any stock in the corporation.  Should you or anyone you know have any questions on this topic, you should consider consulting with a corporate dispute attorney.

LEGAL DISCLAIMER AND TERMS OF USE

Innovative Litigation, L.L.C., as owner and host of this site, and Matthew McKinney as the author (acting on behalf of and through Innovative Litigation, L.L.C.) cannot and does not warrant the accuracy or reliability of the information presented on or through this site.  The law can and does change over time and the information contained herein may not reflect the most recent laws – whether statutory law, administrative law, case law, constitutional law, or otherwise.  The information on this website does not constitute legal advice and readers should not rely on it to solve problems or other matters.  Further, you should seek licensed counsel in the appropriate legal jurisdiction before taking any action.  Any information provided on this site is presented “As Is” for your personal curiosity and enjoyment.  It is not meant to be relied upon for legal advice, counsel, or for any other purposes.  Such information does not take the place of a lawyer.  Rules and laws differ by jurisdiction and the information contained within this website may not apply in your jurisdiction.  The appearance of articles, listings, or ads, by or for professionals, on this site, does not constitute an endorsement.  In all cases, you are responsible for determining the quality of services, information, and/or advice provided by professionals through, or as a consequence of, your use of this site.  Neither liability nor responsibility shall arise to any person or entity with respect to loss or damage caused (or alleged to be caused), directly or indirectly, by information posted on this website, or by reason of contact with a professional listed on, or posting information to, this site.  No attorney-client relationship is formed by viewing this website and practice is limited to jurisdiction where lawyers are admitted.  The information furnished on the website is only general and not a substitute for personalized legal advice.   Legal advice cannot be given without full consideration of all relevant information relating to the individual(s) situation.  Laws can change daily and new laws may, and likely will, affect the accuracy of the information herein.  The information herein may be outdated and replaced by new law.

If you are seeking representation, please read the following notice before sending an e-mail:

Sending an e-mail will not make you a client.  Until an agreement regarding representation is reached with you, anything you send will not be confidential or privileged.  Before representation can occur, a lawyer will first take you through the conflict of interest procedure and see that you are put in touch with the lawyer best suited to handle your matter.

If you proceed with an e-mail, you confirm that you have read and understood this notice.

Advertisements

About Matthew McKinney

Attorney focused on civil and commercial litigation.
This entry was posted in Business Owner, Director, Intra-corporate dispute, Litigation, Manager, Member, Shareholder and tagged , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s