Management And Voting Rights Of Creditors
Site.TopicsManagementVotingRights History
Hide minor edits - Show changes to markup
Southlake Equipment Co., Inc. v. Henson Gravel & Sand, LLC, 213 Okla.Civ.App. 87 ( 2013).
- Southlake Equipment Co., Inc. v. Henson Gravel & Sand, LLC, 213 Okla.Civ.App. 87 ( 2013). https://chargingorder.com/opinion-2013-oklahoma-southlake-equipment-voting-rights-charging-order.html
Green v. Bellerive Condominiums LP., 135 Md.App. 563, 763 A.2d 252 (Md.Sp.App., 2000).
- Green v. Bellerive Condominiums LP., 135 Md.App. 563, 763 A.2d 252 (Md.Sp.App., 2000). https://chargingorder.com/opinion-2000-maryland-green-management-rights-charging-order.html
Green v. Bellerive Condominiums LP., 135 Md.App. 563, 763 A.2d 252 (Md.Sp.App., 2000).
- Southlake Equipment Co., Inc. v. Henson Gravel & Sand, LLC, 213 Okla.Civ.App. 87 ( 2013). https://chargingorder.com/opinion-2013-oklahoma-southlake-equipment-voting-rights-charging-order.html
Green v. Bellerive Condominiums LP., 135 Md.App. 563, 763 A.2d 252 (Md.Sp.App., 2000).
- Green v. Bellerive Condominiums LP., 135 Md.App. 563, 763 A.2d 252 (Md.Sp.App., 2000). https://chargingorder.com/opinion-2000-maryland-green-management-rights-charging-order.html
(:pagelist link=Category.Management_Voting list=normal:)
(:pagelist link=Category.Management_Voting list=normal fmt=title:)
Topic Management_Voting
Topic Management_Voting TopicsManagementVotingRights
Topic Management_Voting
(:pagelist link=Category.managementvoting list=normal:)
(:pagelist link=Category.Management_Voting list=normal:)
Yet, courts continue to face arguments by creditors that as holders of charging orders they should have the right to participate in the management of the entity and vote the D/M's interests. While the courts have so far rejected these challenges (at least outside the SMLLC context), it would be preferable to amend the statute to make this clear.
Yet, courts continue to face arguments by creditors that as holders of charging orders they should have the right to participate in the management of the entity and vote the D/M's interests. While the courts have so far rejected these challenges (at least outside the SMLLC context), it would be preferable to amend the statute to make this more clear.
The LLC and partnership acts state that a holder of a charging order is only a mere lienholder, and thus is not entitled to any management or voting rights of the entity whose interest has been charged. Similarly, even upon a foreclosure of an interest, the purchaser of the interest at the foreclosure sale becomes no better than an "involuntary assignee" who similarly has no management or voting rights (these remain with the debtor/member).
The LLC and partnership acts state that a holder of a charging order is only a mere lienholder, and thus is not entitled to any management or voting rights of the entity whose interest has been charged. Similarly, even upon a foreclosure of an interest, the purchaser of the interest at the foreclosure sale becomes no better than an "involuntary assignee" who similarly has no management or voting rights (these remain with the debtor/member), which is one of the reasons why smart creditors rarely bother to foreclose the charging order lien.
The LLC and partnership acts state that a holder of a charging order is only a mere lienholder, and thus not entitled to any management or voting rights of the entity whose interest has been charged. Similarly, even upon a foreclosure of an interest, the purchaser of the interest at the foreclosure sale becomes no better than an "involuntary assignee" who similarly has no management or voting rights (these remain with the debtor/member).
The LLC and partnership acts state that a holder of a charging order is only a mere lienholder, and thus is not entitled to any management or voting rights of the entity whose interest has been charged. Similarly, even upon a foreclosure of an interest, the purchaser of the interest at the foreclosure sale becomes no better than an "involuntary assignee" who similarly has no management or voting rights (these remain with the debtor/member).
TEXT
Southlake Equipment Co., Inc. v. Henson Gravel & Sand, LLC, 213 Okla.Civ.App. 87 ( 2013).
Green v. Bellerive Condominiums LP., 135 Md.App. 563, 763 A.2d 252 (Md.Sp.App., 2000).
(:title TEXT:) (:Summary: TEXT:) (:description TEXT:) (:keywords charging order, TEXT:)
(:title Management And Voting Rights Of Creditors:) (:Summary: Management And Voting Rights Of Creditors:) (:description Management And Voting Rights Of Creditors:) (:keywords charging order, manage, management, manager, vote, voting, voting rights:)
TEXT
The LLC and partnership acts state that a holder of a charging order is only a mere lienholder, and thus not entitled to any management or voting rights of the entity whose interest has been charged. Similarly, even upon a foreclosure of an interest, the purchaser of the interest at the foreclosure sale becomes no better than an "involuntary assignee" who similarly has no management or voting rights (these remain with the debtor/member).
Yet, courts continue to face arguments by creditors that as holders of charging orders they should have the right to participate in the management of the entity and vote the D/M's interests. While the courts have so far rejected these challenges (at least outside the SMLLC context), it would be preferable to amend the statute to make this clear.
TEXT OPINIONS
(:pagelist link=Category.TEXT list=normal:)
MANAGEMENT AND VOTING RIGHTS OPINIONS
(:pagelist link=Category.managementvoting list=normal:)
TEXT
TEXT OPINIONS
(:pagelist link=Category.TEXT list=normal:)
TEXT
(:title TEXT:)
(:Summary: TEXT:)
(:description TEXT:)
(:keywords charging order, TEXT:)
(:linebreaks:)
topic