A Classic Squeeze-Out: Minority Member Oppression in Wilson v Gandis
In the previous blog, we looked at one of the risks of being in an LLC, minority member oppression. This happens when a member or members of the LLC act to reduce a minority member’s involvement in the company against their will. The majority member(s) may try to “squeeze out” or “freeze out” the minority member from the company altogether. Or they may engage in conduct like withholding distributions and reducing the minority member’s involvement in the company while essentially trapping their investment in the LLC with no way for the minority member to get it back out.
This was the central issue in a case heard by the South Carolina Supreme Court in June 2019, Wilson v Gandis, in which the oppression was described as a “classic squeeze-out.” It’s rather convoluted, with multiple lawsuits and issues, but we’ll focus on the issue of minority oppression and exactly what constitutes it in the eyes of South Carolina courts.
The Background
In 2007, David Wilson and John Gandis formed Carolina Custom Converting (CCC), a company selling film, resin, and other materials. It was a manager-managed LLC, with each owning 50% membership interest. Importantly, Wilson and Gandis never executed a formal operating agreement and had no employee, noncompete, nondisclosure, or nonsolicitation agreements. Many of their oral conversations and agreements were memorialized through email, however.
CCC’s business was intricately linked to other businesses owned by Wilson and Gandis. When CCC was formed, Wilson owned Eastern Film Solutions (EFS) and Gandis owned DecoTex and M-Tech. Wilson agreed to wind down EFS and bring that business over to CCC, for which he was compensated $8,000 per month, later raised to $12,000 per month. Gandis agreed to extend a line of credit to CCC from DecoTex and M-Tech. Plus, CCC operated out of a building owned by M-Tech, so Gandis received the benefit of the rent money paid by CCC.
Gandis brought on Andrea Comeau-Shirley, a CPA, to help with accounting and advice. In 2009, Gandis and Wilson each transferred 5% of their interest to Shirley. She didn’t have a formal voting interest but was actively involved in managing CCC.
Not long after, things started to go south for Wilson. Shirley and Gandis grew closer and began excluding Wilson from discussions about the company’s operations. Over the course of years, they exchanged many emails, which later the trial court said “provide[d] evidence of their oppressive conduct against Wilson.”
The Lawsuits: Wilson v Gandis
After a long period of behavior unfavorable to Wilson, lawsuits followed. The main issue we’ll be looking at is Wilson’s claim against Gandis and Shirley for minority member oppression. (Other issues not relevant here include Gandis’s and Shirley’s counterclaim against Wilson for breach of fiduciary duty, which they lost, and CCC’s claim against Wilson and companies he worked with after CCC for misappropriation of trade secrets, which they also lost.)
In a 5-day bench trial in 2014, a trial court found Gandis and Shirley had engaged in oppressive conduct against Wilson, saying “This is a classic squeeze-out,” and that the body of emails between Gandis and Shirley “abounds with evidence of calculated oppression” and “could serve as a script” for minority member oppression. The court found in favor of Wilson and ordered Gandis and Shirley to buy out Wilson’s interest in CCC as individuals, rather than having CCC buy him out.
Gandis and Shirley appealed, and in an unpublished decision, the appeals court agreed with the trial court and adopted the order in its entirety. They appealed again, and the South Carolina Supreme Court heard the case in June 2019.
Examples of Oppressive Conduct
In its opinion, the supreme court states that it’s not necessary for the plaintiff to prove illegal or fraudulent conduct in order to prove minority oppression. The minority investor instead needs to show that their investment is “trapped” and that they’re facing exclusion from participation in business returns for an indefinite period of time. What constitutes oppressive behavior must be determined on a case-by-case basis.
In this case, the supreme court agrees with the trial court’s conclusions about oppressive conduct on the part of Gandis and Shirley. Here are many of the acts Gandis and Shirley engaged in that the courts found oppressive:
Conspiring together to “get Wilson out.” Many emails exchanged between Gandis and Shirley blatantly and boldly discussed their plans to get Wilson out by different means, including making him an employee with a 5-year noncompete agreement and firing him on the smallest of pretexts.
Withholding distributions. From 2007 to 2010, CCC set aside funds to cover members’ individual tax liabilities, which were proportional to their membership interests. In 2011, this changed. Shirley emailed Gandis and encouraged him to use the funds that would have gone to members to help pay their tax liabilities to instead pay back what was owed on CCC’s line of credit from Gandis’s other business, which would directly benefit Gandis and leave Wilson without money to pay his tax liability. Shirley let Wilson know that there would be no distributions that year to members to cover tax liabilities.
Secretly monitoring Wilson’s emails. Gandis and Shirley began reading Wilson’s emails and referenced them in their own email exchanges. In 2011, they read an email to Wilson from his wife in which she expressed frustration over how Shirley and Gandis were managing CCC. From then on, Gandis’s and Shirley’s efforts to exclude Wilson from the LLC increased.
Gandis and Shirley later said in court that they were simply archiving all of CCC’s incoming emails in order to keep customer quotes and so forth available, but the trial court said this testimony was not credible, and the supreme court agreed. They also said that the employee handbook makes it clear that company email should not have an expectation of privacy – but the handbook was never issued.
Withholding income from Wilson. Not long after reading the email to Wilson from his wife, Gandis and Shirley stopped paying Wilson the monthly $12,000 they had agreed upon to compensate him for bringing his previous company’s business over to CCC.
Plus, they began classifying Wilson’s distributions as loans. When the situation came to a head in October 2011, Gandis (on Shirley’s advice) gave Wilson two options. 1. Surrender his membership interest in order to satisfy his loan balance of $123,000, which began accruing once they recategorized his distributions as loans. Or 2. Become an at-will employee of CCC (with the aim of firing him for the smallest of reasons, according to an email from Shirley).
From there, Wilson and Gandis entered into back-and-forth negotiations. Wilson was trying to find a way to either stay involved fairly or leave with his rightful share of what he was owed, while Gandis was trying to find a way to get Wilson out paying as little as possible.
Revoking financial authority. Around this time, Shirley removed Wilson as signatory on CCC’s bank account, leaving Gandis as the only signatory on the account, and revoked Wilson’s authority to make wire transfers. Wilson’s ability to access CCC’s financial information was also limited.
Misrepresenting the company’s finances. Gandis and Shirley made it look as if CCC had less cash than it had and later manipulated the December 2011 pro forma balance sheet to make it look like Wilson’s interest in the company was less than it really was.
Locking Wilson out of the building. In January 2012, after Wilson and Gandis were unable to come to an agreement about what should happen, Wilson arrived at the office to find Gandis there with a police officer and a locksmith. Since Wilson was a co-owner, the officer didn’t make him leave, and Wilson was able to enter the building and take two laptops, a Blackberry, and a number of files with him before he left and the locks were changed.
Emails between Gandis and Shirley showed that this was their plan. They discussed the legality of it and what to use as a cover story – first that Wilson had resigned (which he protested he didn’t), then that they did it because Wilson was competing with CCC.
Terminating Wilson’s health insurance coverage and cell phone services. These benefits were cut off for Wilson – but not for other members of the LLC – after he was locked out. Plus, from here Gandis and Shirley increased CCC’s monthly rent, which, remember, directly benefited Gandis since CCC rented a building from Gandis’s company M-Tech. They also raised the rate on the line of credit, which again directly benefited Gandis.
Starting up a competing company. In July 2012, Gandis and Shirley started up another LLC, ZOi Films, without telling Wilson. They said they founded it in an attempt to rebrand CCC and it was to be a wholly-owned subsidiary of CCC, but the trial court characterized it as an attempt to “siphon off” business from CCC.
Minority oppression must be determined on a case-by-case basis, says the supreme court, and in this instance it was not ambiguous – the trial court, court of appeals, and supreme court all agreed that Gandis and Shirley engaged in oppressive acts that were “brazen” and “unconscionable” (in the words of the trial court).
A Point of Disagreement
There was one point on which the supreme court disagreed with the trial court, and that’s the issue of who should be responsible for buying Wilson out. Gandis and Shirley argued against the trial court’s order that they must buy out Wilson’s share with their own money, as they argue that the LLC should protect them. They cited subsection 33-44-303(c) of South Carolina Code which protects LLC members from personal liability when acting in the course of ordinary business. But engaging in acts of calculated oppression is not in the course of ordinary business, the court determined.
Still, the supreme court did reverse the trial court’s order for Gandis and Shirley to personally buy Wilson out and remanded the case back to the trial court. CCC is ordered to buy out Wilson’s share, and if it doesn’t do that in a timely manner, then Gandis and Shirley will have to do so personally in a way that’s proportional to their interest in the business.
Protect Your Interests with LLC Governing Documents
The supreme court’s opinion called out that Wilson and Gandis did not have an operating agreement, employee handbook, or other optional but important documents to help them run their business. While having governance documents can’t entirely prevent minority oppression, they can help protect minority members’ interests and give recourse should the issue go to court. Not all instances of minority oppression are as blatant (and numerous) as in the case above.
If you are planning to start up an LLC with other people, or even if you already run one but don’t have anything beyond Articles of Incorporation, get your governance documents drafted and done. Call business attorney Gem at the Gem McDowell Law Group in Mount Pleasant, SC. He and his associates can draft documents that are tailored to your business that are fair to members and will help as you run the business and run into questions. Call today to schedule a free consultation at 843-284-1021.
How A Buy-Sell Agreement Is Like Monopoly
Imagine sitting down with someone to play Monopoly, and it’s the first time ever for both of you. What do you do first? After you each pick a token – the top hat, the Scottie dog – you read out the rules so you both know how the game works.
Pass Go, collect $200. Not $600. Not $800. Land on Free Parking, you get the money in the middle of the board. You don’t just take the money when you feel like it. The game works best when every player is aware of the rules and follows them.
Business is the same way.
When you start a business with other people, you all have to agree on “the rules of the game,” the way things will work in your business. Drafting corporate governance documents is the best way to do this. One of the most important documents is the buy-sell agreement.
The Buy-Sell Agreement Sets the Rules of Business in Advance
A buy-sell agreement is like a pre-nuptial agreement for the business. Instead of saying what will happen when you divorce, it says what will happen when a particular event arises, like a partner being convicted of fraud or becoming disabled.
With a solid buy-sell agreement in place, owners run the company knowing that whatever arises, there is a pre-determined course of action that will take place. It can prevent partners from panicking and having to figure out what to do on the fly or, in some cases, suing each other.
Every business with more than one owner should have a buy-sell agreement in place.
The 8 Parts of a Buy-Sell Agreement
When you prepare a buy-sell agreement for your business at Gem McDowell Law Group, you and your partners will be taken through eight parts. Together with Gem, you’ll create a document that is tailored to your business and meets your needs. That is to say, this is not a cookie cutter document. It’s created for your business alone.
Each one of the eight parts asks you to consider a potential situation and how you’d like to deal with it, should it occur. They are:
1. Borrow money against shares. When an owner or shareholder borrows money against their shares, it can have an impact on the business. Many companies only a partner to borrow against their shares if 75% or 100% of the partners agree to it.
2. Voluntary transfer. What if one of the owners wants to give some shares to his wife? Well, you agreed to be in business with him, not his wife. The buy-sell agreement can prevent that transfer from taking place. Partners can agree upon who can and cannot be given shares in the business through voluntary transfer.
3. Involuntary transfer. This could happen when a bank forecloses on a shareholder’s shares of stock, for example.
4. Discontented owner. Let’s say that in a company with 8 owners, 7 think that the 8th is untrustworthy and want her out. Your buy-sell agreement can make a provision where if a quorum wants that partner gone, she can be forcibly bought out.
5. Crimes of moral turpitude. This legal term refers to a variety of crimes contrary to community standards of justice, honesty or good morals. If an owner of the business is convicted of such a crime, it could be very bad for the company as a whole. For that reason, the remaining owners may decide that a partner guilty of such a crime can be forcibly bought out.
6. Buyout because of retirement. AKA, one of the partners is not working hard enough. The agreement can include a stipulation about how many hours each owner must work in order to be in good standing, and if they don’t work that many hours, what the consequences are. Each owner may have a different number of hours, if, for example, one partner contributes money rather than manpower.
7. Disability. What happens to the business if one of the owners becomes disabled and can no longer work?
8. Death. A buy-sell agreement can include the terms of the buyout of the deceased partner’s share, such as whether the buyout is immediate or part immediate, part later.
Creating a buy-sell agreement early on in your business is smart because you and your partners are more likely to think about each situation in a clear and fair manner. After problems arise, it’s more difficult to get everyone on board – it’s like trying to create the rules of Monopoly after someone has landed on Free Parking. It’ll be a lot tougher getting the other players to agree that landing on Free Parking means you get the dough from the middle of the board. At that point, you’ll wish you had agreed on the rules at the start.
“Do I Really Need a Buy-Sell Agreement?”
The only way it’s remotely close to being okay to not having a buy-sell agreement is if you’re the only person in your business. If you’re in business with someone else, you need to have this and other corporate governance documents. Even if they’re not required by law, it’s just smart business to have them.
Learn More About Buy-Sell Agreements
Whether you’re in the early stages of creating a new business or you’ve been in business for years, call the Charleston office of business attorney Gem McDowell at 843-284-1021 to discuss how he and his associatess can help you. They work with companies to create tailored buy-sell agreements, capital call agreements, non-disclosure agreements, covenants not to compete and more.
5 Ways A Business Lawyer Helps Grow And Protect Your Business
Business law, or corporate law, is the application of law to the business world. The two are completely intertwined at all times. For that reason, as a business owner you should plan to work closely with a business attorney throughout the life of your company, right from the very start. Here are 5 common ways a business lawyer can help you and your business.
1. A business lawyer will help you create your business.
This is called “choice of entity” and it’s a crucial step every business owner must take. Should you be an LLC? A corporation? If so, what kind? Both provide shelter from creditors to your personal assets, but the two entities are very different from one another. Furthermore, there are four ways to structure limited liability companies in South Carolina, and numerous ways to structure corporations.
An experienced business attorney can advise you on which entity is right for you and can tell you the potential pitfalls that you won’t read about on LegalZoom or other DIY sites.
2. A business lawyer can draft your corporate governance documents.
Corporate governance documents describe, govern and constrain activity of the business owners. They “set the rules” and tell everyone involved how things should go and what should happen when a particular occasion arises. They are unique to each business.
You absolutely should have these documents if your company has two or more owners/shareholders/partners (these terms will be used interchangeably through the rest of this article, though they are technically different). Here are some you might consider having:
Bylaws detail how the business is structured and give information on the board of directors, the responsibilities of the owners and more.
An Operating Agreement details how much each member owns in the company, how profits and losses will be allocated, what each member’s responsibilities are, how the company should be managed and more.
A Buy-Sell Agreement is essentially a “pre-nup” for the company. This document lays out what will happen in the event that one of the owners or shareholders dies, becomes ill, simply stops working, etc.
A Capital Call Agreement spells out what happens when the company needs to raise money and what happens when one of the partners can’t come up with their part. A partner who can’t contribute equally may lose voting rights, give up shares, or forego distributions, for example.
Non disclosure agreements (NDAs) and covenants not to compete are intended to protect your company against a former owner or employee running off with your trade secrets and your best customers, thereby hurting your business.
Question: Can you DIY? Should you?
Google these documents and you’ll find plenty of examples and templates you can download and fill in yourself – but don’t do it! Those documents might have been created in a different state, or before a significant change in the law, and they may not be valid. They were certainly drafted for a different business, for different people with different needs from yours. No two businesses are alike, and no two sets of governance documents should be alike.
Question: When is the best time to get these documents?
The best time to draft these documents is at the birth of your new company, when it’s likely that you’ll come up with documents that are fair to all parties. Imagine three years down the road, when one of your partners can’t come up with the money for a capital call – do you think they will want to sign a capital call agreement penalizing non-payment with a high rate of interest? Probably not. To avoid situations like that, it’s best to do it as early as possible, when all the owners feel goodwill towards each other. However, if you’re years into your business and still don’t have them, get something drafted now. Every single company faces issues that these documents address, so it’s not a matter of if but of when something will happen.
3. A business lawyer advises you on the best course of action and helps protect you from potential problems.
A lawyer is often referred to as “attorney and counselor-at-law.” A lawyer both applies the law and provides counsel on it. During a company’s growth, a business lawyer will be most helpful providing counsel on various issues that pertain to the law in order to deal with problems as they arise or, better yet, prevent them in the first place.
Contracts are the area in which you’ll probably need the most regular help from an attorney. As a business owner, you should have a lawyer familiar with your business draft your contracts and look over contracts given to you before signing. Other issues attorneys can help with may include long-range planning (see #4 on succession planning below), drafting terms & conditions for a website, advising on letters received, and, in the case of an attorney experienced in real estate law like Gem McDowell, rezoning or buying and selling land, to name just a few.
4. A business lawyer helps you with succession planning.
Succession planning allows all partners to come to an agreement about what will happen when one of the partners retires and leaves the company. Succession planning usually happens when one partner starts thinking about retirement.
5. A business lawyer represents you in litigation.
Working with a lawyer in the four situations above should hopefully reduce the likelihood that you’ll ever be involved in a lawsuit – and that’s really the point. Litigation is costly, lengthy and stressful for all parties. By being proactive and working with a business attorney from Day 1, you can sidestep the landmines that could otherwise destroy your business.
Learn more about how a business lawyer can help your business
Contact South Carolina attorney Gem McDowell and his associatess at their Charleston office at 843-284-1021 to discuss your company and its legal needs. Whether you’re thinking of starting a new entity or you’ve been running a thriving business for decades, it’s never too late to get legal advice from lawyers with experience in corporate law.
