Dunbar Group, LLC v. Tignor
Virginia Supreme Court
267 Va. 361, 593 S.E.2d 216 (2004)
- Written by Mary Pfotenhauer, JD
Facts
The Dunbar Group, LLC (Dunbar) (plaintiff) and Archie Tignor (defendant) formed and were the sole managers of XpertCTI, LLC (Xpert). Tignor was also the president of X-tel, Inc. Edward Robertson was the sole member and manager of Dunbar. Xpert entered into a contract with Samsung Telecommunications America, Inc. (Samsung). Disputes arose between Robertson and Tignor over Xpert’s management. Dunbar, Xpert, and Robertson brought suit, requesting an order expelling and dissociating Tignor as a member of Xpert. Tignor brought a separate action against Dunbar and Xpert, seeking dissolution of Xpert. The two actions were consolidated. The record showed that Tignor had placed checks payable to Xpert into X-tel’s bank account, caused checks written from Xpert’s checking account to bounce, evicted Robertson from the office space Dunbar was renting from X-tel, and terminated Robertson’s email account with Xpert. The chancellor ordered that Tignor be expelled as a member of Xpert, and that Robertson continue to operate Xpert during the term of the Samsung contract, after which it would be dissolved. Dunbar appealed the portion of the order providing for the dissolution of Xpert, arguing that the evidence was not sufficient to support a finding that it would not be reasonably practicable to carry on Xpert’s business after Tignor’s expulsion as a member.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Keenan, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 803,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 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.
