Beginning at a certain point in the Company's activity, a member of the company with 33.34% membership interest, a member of a Board of Directors of the Company began acting in the interests of the Company's opponent attempting to seize assets worth more than $3, 000, 000. Lawsuits aimed at appealing the transactions concluded by the Company, addressed complaints to various state authorities, published various articles in the media in which it reported negative information about the Company and its members, prevented the adoption of vital decisions for the Company, facilitated the filing of unsubstantiated claims to the Company, satisfaction Which could lead to the bankruptcy of the Company, etc.
Initially, the claim for its exclusion was claimed by the remaining members independently (without the lawyers of LexProf) for two reasons, each of which was the subject of a separate lawsuit in court, and the proceedings were suspended pending consideration of these cases.
After the suspension of the consideration of the case, the Company appealed to the law firm LexProf with a request for legal protection against illegal actions of the member.
Experts of the law firm LexProf, having analyzed the activities of the company and the behavior of the excluded member, came to the conclusion that it was necessary to increase the number of grounds for an action to exclude a member from the Company and to refrain from the part of the requirements that prevented consideration of the case.
The number of grounds for the claim was increased to nine. From the grounds for which there was a suspension, we refused.
Lawyers of the law firm LexProf managed to collect all possible evidence for each episode of the activities of the Company’s member, including performing activities by the said member in the interests of another legal entity that presented unreasonable suits to the Company, causing harm to the Company. The expelled member and his representatives, using the numerous judicial practice, according to which the disputes on exclusion of the member extremely rarely end with the decision to member exclusion, referred to a corporate conflict in the Company, connected with the presence of their disagreements on the corporate management, when the position of none of them is not knowingly unjustified.
As a result of the actions of the specialists of the law firm LexProf it was possible not only to obtain the resumption of the consideration of the case, but also to obtain a decision of the court of the first instance to satisfy the claim and exclude the member from the company. Subsequently, the decision of the court of the first instance was appealed by the defendant in the appellate and cassation instances. The courts of the appellate and cassation instances remained the judgment of the first instance court in force.