CHICAGO: 312 332 7555 SCHAUMBURG: 847 705 7555
Blog Post
Shareholder Disputes – Deadlock Situations
Theodore M. McGinn • August 18, 2020
When setting up a closely held business, the prudent action is to allocate the ownership 50/50 when dealing with two owners. Such an allocation generally ensures that the parties will work together to resolve any differences that they may have over the operation of the business. However, even in 50/50 situations, the parties may nevertheless still be unable to resolve any questions over the best course of conduct for the business thereby creating a deadlock. What can happen in these situations?
The Business Corporation Act of Illinois provides that the shareholders appoint the members of the board of directors of the company in their annual meeting. The board of directors then determine the officers for the company. Finally, the officers are then left to make the day-to-day decisions relating to the management of the business. Typically, the officers include the president, vice president, secretary, and treasurer. A question that is commonly presented: Can the president remove the vice president, secretary, and/or treasurer? In a shareholder dispute, cutting off the compensation that is remitted to the individuals can be a very powerful tool in negotiating an acceptable break up between the parties and provide a significant amount of leverage.
The Business Corporation Act provides that any officer may be removed by the board of directors whenever in its judgment the best interest of the corporation will be served thereby, but such removal shall be without prejudice to the contract rights, if any, of the persons removed. Further, the Business Corporation Act provides that election or appointment of an officer shall not of itself create contract rights.
What these provisions mean is that only the board of directors can remove the officers of the company. In a 50/50 share allocation scenario during a dispute, it is unlikely that the parties will agree to the removal of one another as officers of the company. However, the second prong of the above BCA language is critical. Merely because an individual has been elected as an officer, such individual does not have any contractual rights (such as the right to receive compensation) unless expressly agreed. Furthermore, the president has the authority to make all final decisions with respect to the management of the company, including the termination of individuals as employees. In other words, although the shareholder who sits in the position of the president may not be able to remove the other as an officer of the company, such president would have the authority to terminate such individual as employee thereby putting an end to compensation, unless there is a written agreement to the contrary.
Our firm recommends that closely held businesses be governed under an executed shareholder agreement or operating agreement that addresses these management issues. Simply put, without such an agreement, even in a 50/50 share allocation situation, you still may be vulnerable to a corporate squeeze out.
If you would like more information on this topic, please contact attorney Theodore M. McGinn at 847-705-7555 or tmcginn@lavellelaw.com.
More News & Resources
Lavelle Law News and Events
This article will serve as another update to the ongoing Corporate Transparency Act developments. As of February 17, 2025, a federal judge in the Eastern District of Texas lifted the injunction it had ordered on January 7, 2025, in Smith v. U.S. Department of the Treasury, 6:24-cv-00336 (E.D. Tex.), allowing the federal government to once again enforce the Corporate Transparency Act and its Beneficial Ownership Information Report requirements.
This article is the second in our Litigation 101 series. It focuses on the flip side: how to sue someone else.
Suing someone is a serious decision that requires careful thought and preparation. Before pursuing legal action, it’s crucial to reflect on the issue and understand the steps involved in bringing a lawsuit. This article outlines the basics to help you approach the process with confidence and make informed decisions.
On December 11, 2024, we published an article titled “Corporate Transparency Act on Hold: Key Implications for Businesses,” which addressed the nationwide injunction impacting the enforcement of the Corporate Transparency Act and its Beneficial Ownership Information Reporting rule.
Since then, there have been a few significant legal developments that businesses should monitor closely. While the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network is currently prohibited from enforcing BOIR requirements, ongoing litigation, and the related appeals may alter this status. Below, we provide a timeline of key events and insights into what business owners should anticipate moving forward.
The Internal Revenue Service is issuing automatic payments to eligible people who did not claim a Recovery Rebate Credit on their 2021 tax returns. The payments are in follow up to an IRS announcement last month of the intent to take this special step. The IRS took this step after reviewing internal data showing many eligible taxpayers who filed a return but did not claim the credit. The Recovery Rebate Credit is a refundable credit for individuals who did not receive one or more Economic Impact Payments (“EIP”), also known as stimulus payments.
The Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) establishes federal minimum wage and overtime pay requirements, with exemptions for employees in bona fide executive, administrative, professional, computer or outside sales roles. 29 U.S.C. § 213. Employees classified as "outside sales" must primarily engage in making sales or obtaining contracts for services or the use of facilities, and they must conduct their work primarily away from their employer’s place of business. 29 C.F.R. § 541.500.
Amendments to BIPA
SB 2929 became effective on August 2, 2024. Codified as 740 ILCS 14/10 and 14/20, this Act introduced two pivotal changes to BIPA that dealers should be aware of:
• Limiting Per-Scan Damages: The amendments clarify that a single violation under BIPA accrues per type of violation, rather than per scan. This significantly reduces the financial exposure for dealerships.
• Electronic Consent: The amendments formalize electronic signatures as a valid means of securing biometric consent, streamlining compliance processes for businesses.
The National Taxpayer Advocate recently released her annual report to Congress. A few highlights from the report are summarized in this article.
Nearly 300 New Illinois Laws are going into effect in 2025. Listed below are some that may have a significant impact on you or your business.
As we say farewell to 2024, we’re excited to look back on the unforgettable moments from our Koozie Challenge! From the frozen wonders of Antarctica to the excitement of the Paris Olympics, and countless incredible destinations in between, the Lavelle Law koozie truly went the distance this year! A big thank you to our clients, staff, family, and friends who took part in the fun. Here’s to even more adventures in 2025! Happy New Year from Lavelle Law!
Schaumburg-based Lavelle Law wrapped its annual food drive benefiting the Schaumburg Township Food Pantry. During the month of October, Lavelle Law set up collection boxes around Schaumburg and the surrounding area, where residents and workers could drop off nonperishable food items, paper goods, personal care items, baby food and diapers. Participants could also make cash donations online.
STAY UP TO DATE
Subscribe to our newsletter
OUR LOCATIONS
Phone: 312 332 7555
Fax: 312 332 4611
Fax: 847 705 9960
Created by Olive + Ash.
Managed by Olive Street Design. 