ILNews

Court rules on LLC matter of first impression

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals had to decide for the first time whether a company owes a continuing fiduciary duty to a former shareholder or member to accurately report the company's fiscal results to the IRS for a year in which the former member held stock or was still a member of the limited liability company.

In Mike A. Abdalla, et al. v. Raed I. and Hani I. Qadorh-Zadin, No. 49A04-0812-CV-707, the appellate court noted LLCs weren't available in Indiana until 1993, so there is little caselaw regarding them and even less caselaw concerning fiduciary duties in the LLC context.

The Qadorh-Zadins sold in August 2006 their membership interest in various LLCs and their shares in Q Realty, which they owned with the Abdallas. In 2007, the Qadorh-Zadins received their Schedule K-1s and wanted the companies' former accountant to review them because they believed there were discrepancies. The Qadorh-Zidans also requested to see the companies' books for the year in question. The Abdallas refused, which led to the Qadorh-Zidans filing a complaint alleging breach of fiduciary duty, negligence, and request for declaratory relief to inspect the books.

The trial court denied the Abdallas' motion for summary judgment and certified the case for interlocutory appeal.

The Abdallas claimed because the Qadorh-Zadins were no longer members or stockholders of the companies, they can't be allowed to see the books and they owe no fiduciary duty to the Qadohr-Zadins.

The Court of Appeals found Thompson v. Central Ohio Cellular, Inc. f.k.a. Cellwave, Inc., et al., 639 N.E.2d 462 (Ohio Ct. App. 1994), to be instructive. The Ohio court ruled Cellwave owed a fiduciary duty to Thompson for the time when Thompson was still a stockholder in the company.

In the instant case, the appellate court ruled that because the tax incurring actions happened during the existence of the fiduciary relationship, a fiduciary duty is owed regardless as to when the tax returns were actually completed, wrote Judge Patricia Riley.

"To hold otherwise would give the Abdallas the freedom to allocate tax burdens to the Zidans and retain tax benefits for themselves without allowing the Zidans any recourse to verify or rectify this allocation," she wrote.

The Court of Appeals agreed with the Abdallas that when the Qadorh-Zidans asked to review the companies' records, they were no longer members or shareholders; however, the Qadorh-Zidans wanted financial information covering only the period when they were still members or shareholders.

"Although the Zidans' request might inconvenience the Abdallas, this inspection is to the greater benefit of the companies and all parties. Accordingly, we conclude that the Zidans should be allowed limited access to the records, as this request covers a time while the Zidans had an interest in the companies," she wrote.

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  2. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  3. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  4. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

  5. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

ADVERTISEMENT