skip to main content

Shareholder & Partnership Disputes

Greenbaum represents both majority and minority business owners in shareholder disputes and partnership disputes. We act on behalf of majority and minority business owners in disputes involving business relationships and operations, including those related to business strategy and financial decisions, profit distribution, operational issues, departure or expulsion of a business owner, misappropriation of business assets, and the enforcement of shareholder or operating agreements and/or by-laws. We represent clients in alternative dispute resolution (ADR) proceedings including mediation and arbitration forums.

The firm defends companies and their constituents in breach of fiduciary duty claims concerning allegations of self-dealing or the misappropriation of business assets. Our team litigates claims of oppression, in which a minority shareholder claims that they were denied access to company information, restricted from management decision-making, deprived of their reasonable economic or financial expectations or wrongfully terminated. We also assist both majority and minority stakeholders in valuation, buy-out disputes, and contractual disagreements.

Representative Matters

  • The firm was a member of a unified four-firm team defending a physician shareholder and corporate officer of a neurology practice in $1.1 million creditor litigation alleging breach of contract and fraudulent conveyance against the practice and four individual physicians. The legal team secured dismissal without prejudice of all claims against the individual physicians; litigation remains ongoing against the practice, with continued efforts to reassert claims against the physicians.

Published Cases

  • In Parker v. Parker (2016), successfully represented the plaintiff in litigation involving New Jersey’s Oppressed Shareholder Statute before the New Jersey Chancery Division. The case involved two brothers, both 50% shareholders in two businesses, operated jointly on a single piece of property controlled by a limited partnership also owned by the brothers but operated independently, with no functional operating agreement in place. The court ruled that the defendant had “oppressed” the plaintiff, who suffered significant financial losses, by breaching his fiduciary duty and acting in bad faith.   

Of Interest