Two people JK and MT were involved in a case in a Texas state court. Both of them alleged each other for fraud and misconduct to obtain the control of the company C. The person JK formed a company KR whose most of the shareholders were that of the company C. Meanwhile, he filed a petition for Chapter 7 liquidation in the bankruptcy court and failed to inform the court about his interest in the company KR. Though the person JK’s share belonging to that of the company C was passed to the bankruptcy trustee, he called a meeting of the shareholders of the company C in which the person MT was not included and voted those shares for removing the person MT from the board. The company C board then dismissed the company C’s claims against the person JK in the case with the person MT. To find: The sufficient grounds for the bankruptcy court to dismiss the person JK’s bankruptcy petition.

Question

Want to see the full answer?

Answer 1

Question

Chapter 15, Problem 8BCP

Summary Introduction

Case summary: Two people JK and MT were involved in a case in a Texas state court. Both of them alleged each other for fraud and misconduct to obtain the control of the company C. The person JK formed a company KR whose most of the shareholders were that of the company C. Meanwhile, he filed a petition for Chapter 7 liquidation in the bankruptcy court and failed to inform the court about his interest in the company KR. Though the person JK’s share belonging to that of the company C was passed to the bankruptcy trustee, he called a meeting of the shareholders of the company C in which the person MT was not included and voted those shares for removing the person MT from the board. The company C board then dismissed the company C’s claims against the person JK in the case with the person MT.

To find:The sufficient grounds for the bankruptcy court to dismiss the person JK’s bankruptcy petition.

Expert Solution & Answer

Want to see the full answer?

Check out a sample textbook solution

See solution

Students have asked these similar questions

Naquin, Dubois, and Hoffpauir incorporated to form Air Engineered Systems and Services Inc. Dubois became president and Hoffpauir became secretary-treasurer. Naquin was employed by the company. Conflicts among the three caused a break down in the working relationship. Dubois and Hoffpauir offered Naquin $2,000 a month for 10 years for his share of the business if he would sign a noncompetition agreement. Naquin refused to sell until he could examine the corporate records. Dubois and Hoffpauir refused to allow Naquin to see the books until he signed the noncompetition agreement. Could Dubois and Hoffpauir attach such a condition to Naquin’s request? Explain.

Merrill Lynch employed Post and Maney as account executives. Both men elected to be paid a salary and to participate in the firm’s pension and profit-sharing plans rather than take a straight commission. Thirteen years later, Merrill Lynch terminated the employment of both Post and Maney. Both men began working for a competitor of Merrill Lynch. Merrill Lynch then informed them that all of their rights in the companyfunded pension plan had been forfeited pursuant to a provision of the plan that permitted forfeiture in the event an employee directly or indirectly competed with the firm. Is Merrill Lynch correct in its assertion? Why or why not?

describing a Limited Liability Company (LLC) business that would created. Indicate a specific provisions that would be include in the LLC's Articles of Organization.