Logourl black
From our private database of 14,000+ case briefs...

Auriga Capital Corp. v. Gatz Properties, LLC

Delaware Court of Chancery
40 A.3d 839 (2012)


Facts

Gatz Properties LLC (Gatz Properties) (defendant), Auriga Capital Corporation (Auriga) (plaintiff), and other investors (plaintiffs) formed a limited liability company called Peconic Bay, LLC (Peconic). Gatz Properties owned the majority interest in Peconic. Gatz Properties, through William Gatz, also managed Peconic. The Peconic Bay LLC Agreement (Agreement) provided that: (1) if the manager entered a self-dealing transaction, then the manager would have to prove the fairness of the transaction, and (2) the manager would be responsible for any bad faith actions and even grossly negligent actions. Peconic was formed to develop a golf course on property in Long Island. The idea was to make money subleasing the property to someone else to run the golf course. However, the company that originally subleased the Peconic property neglected the course. Although it eventually became clear that the company was not going to renew its sublease, Gatz did not take any steps to look for ways to protect the members’ investment in the Peconic property, like looking for a new sublessor or a buyer. Indeed, when a buyer came forward on his own, Gatz turned the buyer away. Gatz also provided misleading information to the minority members and made unfair offers to the minority members to buy the property himself. When this failed, Gatz put the Peconic property up for auction without marketing it. Not surprisingly, Gatz was the only bidder to show up, and Gatz bought the Peconic property for a nominal amount. Auriga and Peconic’s other minority members sued Gatz for damages, arguing that Gatz had breached his fiduciary duties to them.

Rule of Law

The rule of law is the black letter law upon which the court rested its decision.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Issue

The issue section includes the dispositive legal issue in the case phrased as a question.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Holding and Reasoning (Strine, J.)

The holding and reasoning section includes:

  • A “yes” or “no” answer to the question framed in the issue section;
  • A summary of the majority or plurality opinion, using the CREAC method; and
  • The procedural disposition (e.g. reversed and remanded, affirmed, etc.).

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 97,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read our student testimonials.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students. Read more about Quimbee.

Here's why 175,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 14,000 briefs, keyed to 188 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.