GIMPEL V. BOLSTEIN
477 N.Y.S.2d 1014 (1984)
NATURE OF THE CASE: This was a petition to dissolve a corporation and a derivative action
under New York State law.
FACTS: Gimpel (P) was a shareholder in Gimpel Farms. Farms was a family corporation
engaged in the dairy business. The farm passed through three generations. Family members
have always participated actively in the management and daily operations of the company and
have taken their recompense in the form of salary and perquisites. Substantial salaries are
drawn and no dividends have ever been paid. P was employed but discharged in 1974 due to
allegations that he embezzled $85,000. Ds have entered substantial evidence to support these
allegations. P has artfully rebutted these allegations by stating that he has never been
prosecuted for any crime and that the statute of limitations has passed. This as a matter of
law was ruled insufficient to rebut the fact that P was thief. Since that time P has
received no benefits from ownership. Shareholders have offered to buy out his shares but he
has rejected those figures as inadequate. P filed this present action.
ISSUE:
RULE OF LAW:
HOLDING AND DECISION:
LEGAL ANALYSIS:
Get
free access to the entire content for Mac, PC or Online
for 2-3 days and free samples
of all kinds of products.
for 2-3 days and free samples of all kinds of products.
https://bsmsphd.com
© 2007-2016 Abn Study Partner
No comments:
Post a Comment