Skip navigation

However, MEMBERS will sometimes agree in advance that future amendments will require less than unanimity. An enterprise agreement could, for example, provide that “this agreement can be changed in all respects by the “yes” of the members who hold the majority of the units. Or a two-thirds or 80 percent super-majority might be needed. This approach is used to provide flexibility, otherwise a recalcitrant member, who has a small share of ownership, could veto the necessary changes or require concessions from the company for approval of the amendment. In a first-impression case that was decided last month, a Manhattan judge ruled that the majority of stolic members of an LLC who did not have an enterprise agreement at the time of its creation were authorized by law to adopt and subsequently enforce a business agreement against an unsigned minority member authorizing, among other things, , calls for additional capital and possibly the affiliate interest of a non-contributing member, watered down. In analyzing the amendment to the Fortune Drive enterprise agreement, the court focused primarily on the intent of the parties. The court found that, although the amendment was written in general, it was accepted to deal with the particular situation of Abbey`s termination, limited the types of claims Abbey could make, and limited the recovery he could obtain. The Tribunal found that no member could have had this type of change in mind if they agreed that a majority of the members` interests could alter the agreement. In their response (read here), Ettenson and Newman responded to a reverse discharge that validated the enterprise agreement, the amended statutes, the call for capital and the vote on the abolition of Shapiro`s salary. The counter-action also sought, in the alternative, a judgment which validated these remedies, even if they were based on the nullity of the enterprise contract, i.e. they were admissible by the rules of delay of the LLC act. In December 2013, Ettenson and Newman submitted amended organizational articles, signed by both parties at the meeting, subject to the written agreement, which referred to LLC as a manager. They also entered into an enterprise agreement without Shapiro`s agreement or signature.

The facts at Shapiro v Ettenson, 2015 NY Slip Op 31670 (U) [Sup Ct NY County Aug. 16, 2015], are pretty simple. In January 2012, three individuals – the Shapiro plaintiffs and the defendants Ettenson and Newman – filed organizational articles for ENS Health, LLC as members of the LLC, each member holding one-third of its members. From its inception to December 2013, ENS did not have a written enterprise agreement. Between September and December 2013, members negotiated and exchanged draft contracts, but none were executed. The court finds that even if it is assumed at this time that the operating contract is invalid and that there is no written enterprise agreement, the standard provisions of the LLC Act would apply. Under the delay provisions, Section 401 has entrusted [LLC`] management to its three members. Ettenson and Newman held a majority stake in Section 402, which allowed them to reduce Shapiro`s salary and launch the tender.

Therefore, the defendant`s remedies are valid even in the absence of an enterprise agreement. [Quote omitted.] Please take advantage of our free CORPORATE agreement LLC model. Like all our forms, this model is for individual use. Under Section 402 (a), c) (3) and f), Shapiro, Ettenson and Newman each had the right to vote in relation to their entry interests, in order to “adopt, amend, renew or revoke the statutes or enterprise agreements.” Together, Ettenson and Newman owned two-thirds of the [company] which clearly constituted a sufficient majority under the LLC Act to adopt the enterprise agreement and amend the statutes. As a result, Ettenson and Newman made it appear that they had the authority to approve and accept the enterprise agreement and to amend the statutes and that these documents were valid and enforceable.