LP6.2 Lien v. Lien Essay Example for Free

LP6.2 lien v. Lien EssayA. What type of business entity did Pete Lien Sons, Inc. , operate when it was originally 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 new(prenominal) Charles Lien, and their father Pete Lien Sr. C. When Pete Lien Sons, Inc. , structured in 1952, the partners became ___________ of the corporation. When Pete Lien Sons, Inc. , in 1952, the partners became equal shareholders of the corporation. D. How many mess served on the corporations board 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 more income and dividends than any other shareholder?Bruce Lien owned the majority of stoc k in the corporation and received more income and dividend than the other shareholders. F. What allegations did Bruce Lien assert his complaint in the urbane 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 tortuous limp with prospective business relations or expectancy. G.Under what South Dakota statute did the trial court find that there was a shareholder deadlock in failing to elect directors? (example (SDCL __-__-__) Under SDCL 47-7-34(3) That the shareholders are deadlocked in voting mogul, and have failed, for a period which included at least two ensuant annual meeting dates, to elect successors to directors whose terms have expired or would have expired upon the election of their successors H. What did the trial court determine to be the nearly equitable manner of breaking the deadlock?The trial court determined the most equitable manner of breaking the deadlock was a blind sell 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, go for 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.