They correctly argue that the action involved here is a derivative suit, and the rights belong to Central Tennessee Mack, not Schwegman.
Schwegman was willing to forget about the interest of Central Tennessee Mack, provided he was compensated.
They argue that established principles of equity require that "[h]e who seeks equity must do equity," Willig v. Usurpation of Corporate Opportunity Schwegman's counsel argues that Central Tennessee Mack signed the purchase agreement for the property in question, paid the earnest money on the purchase contract from its account, and actually paid for the property from its account.
Schwegman acknowledges he was an employee at will. Howard insists that the claim for breach of the contract must fail because Schwegman offered no consideration for the contract and the contemporaneous document rule requires a construction of all writings which were submitted to Schwegman as a part of the transaction.
In fact the phrase is a nineteenth century wrestling term, meaning to get a better grip hold on your opponent. Houston Ezell Corp. Schwegman argues that Indiana courts are generally hesitant to inquire into the adequacy of consideration.
Howard insists that the documents, when read together, establish a condition precedent to the agreement which was not fulfilled. The appellees argue that the principle of estoppel does not apply in this case. Howard insists that, under Indiana law, an assignee of an interest in a limited liability company can become a member only if other members unanimously agree absent a provision in the operating agreement otherwise.
He asserts that his delay in filing suit was based solely on his reliance of the appellees' representations. As to these rulings, we sustain the chancellor and affirm the judgment. See Mike v. Byrd v. Sullivan v.
Because such statements include risks and uncertainties, actual results may differ materially from those expressed or implied by such forward-looking statements. GlobeNewswire is one of the world's largest newswire distribution networks, specializing in the delivery of corporate press releases financial disclosures and multimedia content to the media, investment community, individual investors and the general public.
PO Group, Inc. We find that the Indiana courts would not have inquired into the adequacy of the consideration given the facts of this case.
Kilcrease, Jr. Peters, and David I. Because such statements include risks and uncertainties, actual results may differ materially from those expressed or implied by such forward-looking statements. Callcott, Nashville, Tennessee, for the appellants Maurice Schwegman, et al.
Whether the agreement between Schwegman and Howard was an assignment of shares or a transfer of shares can only be determined after an evidentiary hearing.
Email Print Friendly Share. Harrison-Floyd Farm Bureau Coop.