LP6.2 Lien v. Lien Essay Example for Free

LP6.2 irascibility v. Lien EssayA. What quality of business entity did Pete Lien Sons, Inc. , operate when it was primarily 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 beholders of the corporation. D. How m some(prenominal) people served on the corporations dining table 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 to a greater extent income and dividends than any other share holder?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 winding interference with prospective business relations or expectancy. G.Under what South Dakota statute did the examination chat up find that there was a shareholder dead end in failing to elect directors? (example (SDCL __-__-__) Under SDCL 47-7-34(3) That the shareholders are deadlocked in balloting power, and have failed, for a period which included at least deuce consecutive annual meeting dates, to elect successors to directors whose terms have discontinue or would have expired upon the election of their successors H. What did the trial court determine to be the most equitable manner o f breaking the deadlock?The trial court determined the most equitable manner of breaking the deadlock was a dip 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, oppose 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 deadlocked in voting power because of Bruces refusal to attend the meeting and participate in the voting for new directors.