Obeid v. Hogan

2016 WL 3356851 (2016)

From our private database of 46,500+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Obeid v. Hogan

Delaware Chancery Court
2016 WL 3356851 (2016)

  • Written by Alexander Hager-DeMyer, JD

Facts

William Obeid (plaintiff), Christopher La Mack, and Dante Massaro were the founders and only members of Gemini Equity Partners, LLC (Gemini Equity) and Gemini Real Estate Advisors, LLC (Gemini Real Estate) (defendants). Each entity was a limited-liability company (LLC) governed by an LLC agreement that mimicked corporate governing structures. Gemini Equity’s agreement vested governing power in a board of directors, and Gemini Real Estate vested governing power in its managers. Obeid, La Mack, and Massaro served as the only directors of Gemini Equity and the only managers of Gemini Real Estate. After a dispute over company roles, Obeid filed several state and federal lawsuits that were combined into a New York federal suit, alleging that La Mack and Massaro had started competing real estate companies using Gemini Equity’s and Gemini Real Estate’s assets. Obeid asserted claims based on his rights as a member of the two entities and derivatively on behalf of the entities themselves. During Obeid’s filing process, Obeid, La Mack, and Massaro met together with associated counsel in a joint special meeting of Gemini Equity’s directors and Gemini Real Estate’s managers. During the meeting, La Mack and Massaro discussed hiring a former federal judge to create a parallel special-litigation committee (SLC) for each entity and to recommend whether to pursue the derivative claims on behalf of both entities. La Mack and Massaro independently engaged Judge Michael Hogan (defendant) for the parallel special-litigation committees. Hogan was not a director of Gemini Equity or a member of Gemini Real Estate. La Mack and Massaro also voted to remove Obeid as a director of Gemini Equity. Obeid filed suit in Delaware Chancery Court, seeking declaratory judgment that Hogan could not serve as an SLC for either LLC and that Hogan had no authority over either LLC’s derivative claims. Obeid also sought judgment stating that he could not be removed as a director. Obeid filed for summary judgment. The chancery court denied summary judgment regarding Obeid’s director status because the LLC agreement allowed a director to be removed by majority rule, which La Mack and Massaro had. The court then addressed Hogan’s status as an SLC.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Laster, J.)

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 832,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

  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.

Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 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.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 46,500 briefs - keyed to 994 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership