Search for: "Ferolito v Vultaggio" Results 1 - 7 of 7
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
6 Aug 2012, 12:50 am by John Diekman
However, pursuant to § 1118(a), the petition triggers the right of any other shareholder or shareholders or the corporation to elect to purchase the petioners' shares at their fair value.Student note: This election, once made, is irrevocable.Case: Ferolito v. [read post]
14 Mar 2022, 4:31 am by Franklin C. McRoberts
Ferolito Ferolito v Vultaggio (99 AD3d 19 [1st Dept 2012]), was one of several appellate decisions in the sprawling AriZona Iced Tea litigation. [read post]
2 Feb 2015, 3:07 am by Peter Mahler
[Ferolito v Vultaggio, 99 AD3d 19, 25-26] When a respondent exercises the statutory buyout election, Justice Platkin next observed, “the issue principally becomes one of establishing the fair value of the [corporations]. [read post]
26 Jan 2015, 3:17 am by Peter Mahler
In last week’s ruling, the appellate court affirmed the denial of dissolution under BCL § 1102 but reversed the grant of common-law dissolution and dismissed the petition, stating: “[T]he remedy of common-law dissolution is available only to minority shareholders who accuse the majority shareholders and/or the corporate officers or directors of looting the corporation and violating their fiduciary duty” (Matter of Sternberg [Osman], 181 AD2d 897, 897-898; see Matter of… [read post]
19 Oct 2020, 4:19 am by Franklin C. McRoberts
” In the most recent New York appeals court decision sustaining against a dismissal motion a claim for common-law dissolution, Ferolito v Vultaggio, 99 AD3d 19 [1st Dept 2012], the Court explained: A claim for common–law dissolution is properly stated where it is alleged with sufficient factual detail that the shareholders in control have been looting the company’s assets at the expense of the minority shareholders, continuing the corporation’s… [read post]
13 Feb 2023, 4:55 am by Franklin C. McRoberts
” Willard also argued, quoting O’Connor v Coccadotts (47 Misc 3d 331 [Sup Ct, Albany County 2015]), that a bond would be entirely inappropriate without “‘proof persuasively demonstrating a need for such relief. [read post]