LP6.2 Lien v. Lien Essay

A. What type of business entity did Pete irascibility & Sons, Inc. , operate when it was archetypely founded in 1944?. Pete Lien & Sons, Inc. operated a partnership when the business was originally founded in 1944. B. Who were the original three partners of Pete Lien & Sons, Inc. , when it was founded? The original partners were Bruce Lien, his br early(a) Charles Lien, and their father Pete Lien Sr. C. When Pete Lien & Sons, Inc. , incorporated in 1952, the partners became ___________ of the corporation.When Pete Lien & Sons, Inc. , in 1952, the partners became equal sh arholders of the corporation. D. How m all people served on the corporations display board of directors at the time of the lawsuit? At the time of the lawsuit, seven people served on the corporations board of directors. E. At the time of the litigation, who owned the majority of stock in the corporation and received more(prenominal) income and dividends than any other shareholder?Bruce Lien owned the majority of stock in the corporation and received more income and dividend than the other shareholders. F. What allegations did Bruce Lien assert his complaint in the civil action that he brought against the corporation and the other members of the board of directors in April 2000? Bruce Lien alleged minority shareholder oppression, breach of fiduciary duty and snarled interference with prospective business relations or expectancy. G.Under what reciprocal ohm Dakota statute did the trial accost find that there was a shareholder standstill in failing to elect directors? (example (SDCL __-__-__) Under SDCL 47-7-34(3) That the shareholders are standed in voting power, and have failed, for a period which included at least deuce consecutive annual meeting dates, to elect successors to directors whose terms have run out or would have expired upon the election of their successors H. What did the trial court determine to be the most equitable manner of breaking the deadlock?The trial court determin ed the most equitable manner of breaking the deadlock was a trick auction between Bruce and all the other shareholders for the sale of the corporation. I. When the trial courts decision was appealed, did the South Dakota Supreme Court, agree that a deadlock existed? No, the Supreme Court did not agree a deadlock existed and reversed the trial courts rulings. The Supreme Court stated, there was no showing that the shareholders were stalemated in voting power because of Bruces refusal to attend the meeting and participate in the voting for upstart directors.