Bonavita v. Corbo

New Jersey Superior Court, Chancery Division · 1966 · Corporations

Corporationsshareholder oppressionclosely held corporationsdeadlockdividendsbuyout remedybusiness judgment ruleclose corporation

Facts

Corbo Jewelers, Inc. was a closely held corporation equally owned by Gerald Bonavita and Alan Corbo after the corporation bought out a third shareholder in 1984. Alan, as president and chief executive officer, ran the corporation with his sons, and six Corbo family members drew substantial compensation, while after Gerald's death no payments of any kind were made to Gerald's estate or Julia Bonavita. The corporation paid no substantial dividends, despite large retained earnings and significant liquid assets, and Alan opposed both dividends and a buyout of the Bonavita shares. Julia claimed she was locked into stock ownership that provided no salary, no dividends, no practical exit, and no benefit of any kind.

Issue

Whether a 50% shareholder in a closely held corporation who lacks actual control may invoke the oppression remedy under N.J.S.A. 14A:12-7, and whether the controlling shareholder's refusal to pay dividends or provide any alternative benefit, while channeling substantial employment benefits to his own family, constitutes oppression notwithstanding the business judgment rule. A further issue was whether the appropriate remedy was a compelled buyout rather than dissolution or some lesser measure.

Rule

Under N.J.S.A. 14A:12-7, whether a shareholder is a 'minority shareholder' is determined by a qualitative assessment of actual control, not by a mechanistic ownership percentage. Oppression is tested by whether those in control have frustrated the complaining shareholder's reasonable expectations; fraud, illegality, or mismanagement need not be shown. The business judgment rule does not bar relief where the exercise of corporate power destroys a vulnerable shareholder's reasonable expectations, and a court exercising equitable power may compel a buyout when that is the only practical alternative to dissolution.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

Maple Street Foods, Inc., a closely held New Jersey corporation in Newark, has two shareholders: Dana Russo owns 50% and Victor Leone owns 50%. Victor serves as president, controls day-to-day operations, and can block any board action because the two-member board consists of Dana and Victor; Dana has no practical way to cause the corporation to act without Victor's agreement.

Dana sues under a shareholder-oppression statute protecting minority shareholders. Victor argues that Dana cannot qualify because she owns half the stock. How should the court rule?

Explanation. The majority opinion treats minority status qualitatively, focusing on power rather than a mechanistic percentage test. A 50% owner may be a minority shareholder when she lacks actual control and cannot generate corporate action, while the other shareholder effectively controls the corporation.