Back view of businessman with umbrella looking at city

Delaware highlighted, fiduciary duty waiver under 6 Del. C. § 18-1101(c)Key Takeaways:

  • Delaware lets LLC members contract away fiduciary duties almost entirely — 6 Del. C. § 18-1101(c) permits an LLC agreement to expand, restrict, or eliminate them — which makes the waiver provision the single most consequential clause in a Delaware operating agreement.
  • The waiver power has a floor that cannot be drafted away: § 18-1101(e) preserves liability for bad-faith violation of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing.

New York highlighted, LLC Law § 702Key Takeaways:

  • New York courts order forced buyouts in LLC dissolution cases even though the LLC Law nowhere authorizes them — but only as relief layered onto a winning dissolution claim, never as a workaround for a losing one.
  • The doctrine’s turning point is Mizrahi v. Cohen, where the Second Department imposed a buyout the operating agreement did not provide for — converting the equitable buyout from a remedy courts may order into one they sometimes must order.

New York highlighted, Mizrahi v. Cohen equitable buyoutKey Takeaways:

  • New York gives an oppressed LLC member no oppression statute. LLC Law § 702 is the sole route to judicial dissolution, and the courts apply it more strictly than the corporate oppression standard — exclusion from management, unpaid distributions, and member discord do not, by themselves, state a claim.
  • The two grounds that survive are failed purpose and financial infeasibility, both measured against the operating agreement. Facts that fit those prongs win; freeze-out facts dressed up as dissolution claims get dismissed at the pleading stage.

Tile map of U.S. states comparing LLC minority oppression remedies by state: dissolution-only jurisdictions versus statutory oppression remedies Key Takeaways:

  • Not every state gives an oppressed LLC member a statutory remedy. New York and Delaware confine judicial dissolution to the strict “not reasonably practicable” standard; New Jersey’s LLC statute expressly authorizes relief for oppression, and that power cannot be waived in the operating agreement.
  • In the gap states, freeze-out conduct alone rarely wins dissolution. The realistic paths are fiduciary duty claims — which produce damages, not exit — and, in New York, a court-fashioned buyout available only after a dissolution claim succeeds.

Minority Shareholder Oppression Attorney for New Jersey Business Owners

New Jersey minority oppression lawyer | attorneyWhen majority owners cross the line, you don’t have to accept a squeeze‑out. We represent minority shareholders in closely held corporations (and LLCs) —protecting voting power, access to information, dividends, and the value of your equity. If you’re being frozen out, we move quickly to preserve evidence, seek leverage, and pursue remedies that fit your goals, from negotiated buyouts to court‑ordered relief.


Jay McDaniel | Closely Held Advisor Attorney

I am a lawyer, a certified valuation analyst, and a certified exit and succession planner.  I have worked with closely held business owners and handled minority oppression cases throughout my career. Contact me with questions about managing your closely held business and protecting your rights as an owner.

NJ Minority Shareholder & LLC Oppression — Guide

New Jersey law gives minority shareholders in close corporations and LLC members powerful remedies when those in control act oppressively—from injunctions to court‑ordered buyouts at fair value. This guide explains what counts as “oppression,” how courts analyze remedies and valuation, and how to prepare your case.


anger-2728273_1920-1024x683

What “oppression” means in New Jersey (in plain English)

The end of a business partnership is a journey fraught with legal, financial, and emotional complexities. For owners of closely held corporations, LLCs, and partnerships, a “business divorce” requires a strategic, multi-disciplinary approach. I developed “Happily Business Divorced 2025,” a comprehensive seminar presented by the New Jersey Institute for Continuing Legal Education (NJICLE) on Friday, August 8, 2025, from 9:00 a.m. to noon, to assist other lawyers in assessing and handling these disputes.

We assembled a team of leading professionals to tackle the most critical facets of business separation. After an overview of the core legal principles governing these disputes, we will then delve into some of the the crucial numbers with two outstanding experts:

  • Christopher Young, Ph.D., of Resecon will demystify complex valuation methodologies, ensuring you understand how to accurately determine a business interest’s worth.

Key Takeaways:

  • Minority shareholders in closely held corporations may face a challenge to their investment due to their lack of control over company decisions.

  • Legal protections do exist to safeguard their interests, including rights to financial information, fair treatment, and avenues for relief in cases of oppression.

  • State laws vary, with New Jersey, New York, and Delaware each offering different levels of protection and remedies for minority shareholders.


In closely held corporations, minority shareholders—those holding less than 50% of the company’s shares—often find themselves at the mercy of the decisions of majority shareholders.

This imbalance can lead to situations where the minority’s interests are overlooked or actively undermined. To address these challenges, various legal protections have been established, though they differ significantly across jurisdictions.

Judicial Dissolution | Judicial Dissociation | Attorneys | LawyersUnderstanding Minority Shareholder Oppression

Minority shareholder oppression occurs when majority shareholders engage in actions that are harmful, unfair, or abusive toward minority shareholders. Such actions can include:

  • Withholding dividends
  • Denying access to essential financial information
  • Excluding minority shareholders from key decision-making processes
  • Implementing “squeeze-out” tactics to force minority shareholders to sell their shares at undervalued prices

The definition and remedies for shareholder oppression vary by state, making it crucial to understand the specific laws applicable in each jurisdiction.

Legal Protections for Minority Shareholders

Minority shareholders are entitled to certain fundamental rights to protect their interests:

Access to Financial Information

Continue reading

Key Takeaways

  • A minority shareholder oppression claim requires clear evidence of damages, including a reliable valuation of the business.

  • In Jennings v. Simmons, the plaintiff’s failure to present valuation evidence prevented the court from awarding damages.

  • The court ruled that without financial records or expert testimony, it could not determine the fair value of the plaintiff’s equity stake.

  • This case highlights the importance of proper documentation and valuation in shareholder disputes.


Case Summary

In Jennings v. Simmons, the New Jersey Appellate Division affirmed the trial court’s dismissal of minority oppression claims due to a lack of evidence regarding the company’s value. Plaintiff Randee K. Jennings alleged that she was improperly denied compensation and equity in Global Network Solutions LLC (GNS) and sought damages. However, the court found that she failed to provide a reliable valuation of her ownership interest, making it impossible to award damages.

Attorney for Buy-Sell AgreementThe Parties and Relevant Facts

Global Network Solutions LLC (GNS) was a telecommunications company founded in 2014 by Carl F. Simmons, who served as its CEO. Jennings held the title of Senior Vice President and Chief Information Officer, and she claimed that Simmons promised her a 10% equity stake in the company in exchange for her contributions. Other key executives included Raymond Fischer and Julian Caprow.

Jennings contended that she was essential to GNS’s success, securing most of its clients and hiring key employees. However, her compensation was inconsistent, and she never received formal documentation confirming her ownership stake. Simmons allegedly mismanaged company funds, using GNS accounts for personal expenses such as luxury items and services. Tensions escalated, leading to Jennings’ termination and subsequent litigation.

Continue reading

  • Shareholder Disputes in closely held corporations are common and often arise from voting deadlocks, financial disagreements, and claims of minority shareholder oppression.

  • New York law provides several legal remedies, including dissolution proceedings, buyouts, and derivative lawsuits.

  • Preventative measures, such as well-drafted shareholder agreements, can mitigate future disputes.

Contact Information