Pertuis v. Front Roe Restaurants, Inc.

817 S.E.2d 273 (2018)

From our private database of 47,000+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Pertuis v. Front Roe Restaurants, Inc.

South Carolina Supreme Court
817 S.E.2d 273 (2018)

  • Written by Haley Gintis, JD

Facts

Mark and Larkin Hammond formed three separate S-corporations to establish three different restaurants. Kyle Pertuis (plaintiff) was hired to manage the restaurants and received ownership interests as part of his compensation. Pertuis’s employment contract for two of the corporations provided that he would acquire a 10 percent ownership interest in each corporation after five years. Pertuis’s contract for the third corporation, Front Roe Restaurants, Inc. (defendant), provided that Pertuis would acquire a 1 percent ownership interest when the restaurant became profitable and another 9 percent interest when the restaurant achieved $500,000 in profits. By 2007, Pertuis had acquired a 10 percent ownership in the first two corporations but received only a 1 percent ownership interest in Front Roe because of profitability issues. Pertuis sought to change the arrangement so that he could acquire a 10 percent ownership interest in Front Roe but was unsuccessful. Pertuis then terminated his business relationship with the Hammonds and filed suit against them. Pertuis argued that he was entitled to a 10 percent ownership interest and a forced buyout because he was an oppressed minority shareholder and the Hammonds had acted in bad faith. The trial court found that a de facto partnership had been created and that therefore the corporations should be viewed as one single entity. The trial court based this finding on the fact that the Hammonds were shareholders of all three corporations, had intermingled the corporations’ funds, and had not complied with corporate formalities. Pertuis was awarded a 7.2 percent ownership interest in Front Roe and a forced buyout. The Hammonds appealed claiming, among other arguments, that the trial court erred in requiring an amalgamation. The court of appeals affirmed on the grounds that the issue of amalgamation had not been preserved and that a de facto partnership was warranted. The matter was appealed. The South Carolina Supreme Court granted certiorari.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Kittredge, C.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 899,000 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 899,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 47,000 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 899,000 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
  • 47,000 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