This week, drawing inspiration from Peter Mahler’s annual Summer Shorts series of articles, we’ll feature a relatively pithy summary of an impressive post-trial decision from one of the finest judges sitting in our state capital, Albany County Commercial Division Justice
If you are company counsel advising an early-stage startup, the recent judgment in Gregg v. Cooley LLP should give you pause. On July 27, 2026, the Superior Court of New Jersey entered a judgment of over $25 million against Cooley
Shareholder oppression is a claim that minority owners make almost instinctively when a closely held business relationship breaks down. That instinct feeds a constant stream of litigants pushing courts to test the doctrine’s boundaries—what counts as oppression, what remedies it
How far can a CEO go in diverting a company’s most valuable assets to entities controlled by his spouse before the courts call it what it is: fraud? Paley v. Curious Holdings, LLC, 2026 NY Slip Op 50829(U) (Sup Ct
Last week, Becky Baek wrote a fine piece about LLC manager removal. Her case, Homapour v 3M Props., LLC, (___ AD3d ___, 2026 NY Slip Op 04371 [1st Dept July 9, 2026]), alluded to, without mentioning explicitly, the LLC
If you’ve spent any time around startup equity, you’ve probably heard someone describe the standard 90-day post-termination exercise window as a “trap for the well-meaning employee”. That is a little dramatic, but not entirely wrong. When an employee leaves the
The New York State Legislature recently enacted the Pied‑à‑Terre Tax (PAT) Surcharge, introducing a significant, additional annual real estate tax on certain high-value New York City residential properties that are not the owner’s primary residence – including single family residences,
Some business divorce cases are about money. Others are about control. Today’s case, Homapour v 3M Properties LLC, 2026 NY Slip Op 04371 (1st Dept 2026), is about both.As we often see with second and third generation closely-held family
Here we go again.My last outing on this blog analyzed a dispute over the consequences of a limited partner’s failure to meet a mandatory capital call. There, the Manhattan-based Appellate Division, First Department, held that under the Delaware limited
When does a litigant’s persistence (and perhaps, stubbornness) cross the line into sanctionable conduct? That is the question at the heart of Cortlandt St. Recovery Corp. v. TPG Capital Management, L.P., et al. (Index 651176/2017), a Commercial Division decision by
