Segal v. Genitrix, LLC
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
87 N.E.3d 560 (2017)
- Written by Jamie Milne, JD
Facts
Biotechnology startup Genitrix, LLC (defendant) was a Delaware limited-liability company (LLC) formed by Fisk Johnson (defendant) and Andrew Segal (plaintiff). Segal transferred intellectual property to the company in exchange for an equity interest. Johnson and Fisk Ventures, LLC (Fisk), a company owned by Johnson and Stephen Rose (defendant), took equity interests in exchange for providing funding. Genitrix, which was structured like a corporation, had a five-person board of directors with Segal as the CEO, Johnson and Rose as directors, plus one additional director appointed by Segal and one appointed by Johnson. Genitrix’s operating agreement stated that management powers were vested in Genitrix’s board but that those management powers were expressly delegated to Segal, who was to serve as Genitrix’s president. The company only ever had four employees in addition to Segal, and Segal was responsible for all day-to-day operational tasks, including payroll. Johnson and Rose never worked for the company. They were only ever board members and investors. Genitrix’s operating agreement specified that investors did not have any agency authority and thus could not act on Genitrix’s behalf. By 2006, Genitrix was in financial difficulty and struggling to make payroll. In January 2007, Segal stopped taking his salary in an attempt to alleviate financial strain. He notified the board of that decision some months later. Nevertheless, Genitrix eventually ran out of money, and its board deadlocked over how to proceed. Rose, acting on behalf of Fisk, Genitrix’s largest shareholder, petitioned for judicial dissolution of Genitrix. Segal strongly opposed. Segal sued Johnson and Rose, alleging that under Delaware’s Wage Act, they were personally liable for Segal’s unpaid wages from 2007 to 2009. Johnson and Rose argued that they were not liable because they were neither officers of Genitrix nor agents having management of the company. The trial-court jury held in Segal’s favor. Johnson and Rose appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Kafker, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 920,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 47,300 briefs, keyed to 1,000 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.

