• HOME
  • SPEAKING ENGAGEMENTS
  • PROFILE
  • ALLEN MATKINS
  • CONTACT
Print Email Shortlink

Court of Appeal Decides Buy-Out Questions Under Re-RULPA

By Keith Paul Bishop on September 28, 2011 in Partnerships

California’s Uniform Limited Partnership Act of 2008, commonly known as Re-RULPA, established a mechanism by which partners can avoid a judicial dissolution of the partnership by purchasing for cash the partnership interest owned by the partners initiating the judicial dissolution proceeding.  Cal. Corp. Code § 15908.02.  This procedure was modeled after the buy-out procedures in the Beverly-Killea Limited Liability Company Act.    Cal. Corp. Code § 17351.  In fact, Section 15908.02(d) retains an erroneous reference to “any member”.

What happens if the partners seeking a judicial dissolution dismiss their petition?  In Panakosta Partners, LP v. Hammer Lane Management, LLC,  Cal. Ct. Appeal Case No. C06812 (Sept. 27, 2011), the Third District Court of Appeal found that the dismissal of the petition for dissolution deprives the trial court of jurisdiction to grant the other partners’ petition for a buyout. 

The Court of Appeal also found that a petition for judicial dissolution constitutes activity protected under California’s so-called “anti-SLAPP” statute, Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 425.16.  That statute facilitates the early dismissal of meritless claims aimed at chilling the First Amendment right of petition.  The petitioners, however, did not prevail on their anti-SLAPP claim because the Court of Appeal found that the legislature did not intend to subject every motion for a buyout to the anti-SLAPP statute.

anti-SLAPPPanakosta v. Hammer Lanepartnership dissolutionRe-RULPASection 1908.02
  • Related Stories
  • Most Popular
  • Bitcoin And The Corporations Code
  • If You’re Relying On The Signature Of Two Officers, You May Want To Think Again
  • Court Explicates Scope of Usury Exemption For Real Estate Brokers
  • Supreme Court To Decide If It Will Decide Whether Section 16 Plaintiff Has Constitutional Standing
  • But Wait, California May Require Even More In Annual Reports To Shareholders
  • California Requires Many Foreign Corporations To Send Annual Financial Statements To Shareholders
  • Conflict Minerals Bill In Suspense File (For Now)
  • Concurrent Jurisdiction Found For Covered Class Actions
  • Nevada Supreme Court Adopts Delaware Approach To Fair Value Burden Of Proof
  • SEC Proposes John Wilkes Booth Rules
  • If I Were A Carpenter, I’d Build A Better Proxy
  • CalPERS’ Annus Horribilis: How Much Worse Will It Get?
← Previous Next →

AUTHOR

Keith Paul Bishop
Partner
(949) 553-1313
kbishop@allenmatkins.com
CONTACT ME

RECOGNITION

NEWSLETTER

TOPICS

  • Accountants
  • Administrative Procedure
  • Attorney-Client Privilege/Work Product
  • Broker-Dealers
  • California Securities Laws
  • California Sui Generis
  • CalPERS/CalSTRS
  • Choice of Law/Conflict of Law
  • Corporate Governance
  • Department of Corporations
  • Derivative Suits
  • Enforcement & Investigations
  • Fairness Hearings
  • Finance Lenders
  • Financial Institutions
  • Investment Advisers
  • JOBS Act
  • Legislation
  • Limited Liability Companies
  • Mergers & Acquisitions
  • Nevada Corporations
  • Non-Compete Agreements
  • Partnerships
  • Professional Responsibility
  • Pseudo-Foreign Corporations
  • Public Records Act/FOIA
  • Secretary of State
  • Securities Litigation
  • Uncategorized
  • Video

YOUTUBE

TWITTER

FACEBOOK

CALENDAR

September 2011
M T W T F S S
« Aug   Oct »
 1234
567891011
12131415161718
19202122232425
2627282930  

Copyright © 2013 California Corporate & Securities Law.

Powered by WordPress and News.

  • follow:follow:
  • Become my Facebook friend Become my Facebook friend
  • Connect with me Connect with me
  • RSS RSS
  • Tweet with me Tweet with me