In a limited partnership PB, the persons HS and RW owned KBF (a Limited liability company), a catfish farm in Mississippi. RW operated a hatchery for a period of eight years, where the hatchery had only two profitable years following which RW was fired. A suit was filed against KBF and its owners for a freeze-out. A counterclaim for theft was filed by the defendant. The request to obtain the documents of RW, especially the finance-related documents, to support the claim. The request was rejected and an amunt of &&#35;36;1.7 million was awarded to RW by the jury. The decision was appealed. To explain: The ethical duty of RW to comply with the defendant’s discovery request.

Question

Want to see the full answer?

Answer 1

Question

Chapter 3, Problem 4CT

Summary Introduction

Case summary:In a limited partnership PB, the persons HS and RW owned KBF (a Limited liability company), a catfish farm in Mississippi. RW operated a hatchery for a period of eight years, where the hatchery had only two profitable years following which RW was fired. A suit was filed against KBF and its owners for a freeze-out. A counterclaim for theft was filed by the defendant. The request to obtain the documents of RW, especially the finance-related documents, to support the claim. The request was rejected and an amunt of &#36;1.7 million was awarded to RW by the jury. The decision was appealed.

To explain:The ethical duty of RW to comply with the defendant’s discovery request.

Expert Solution & Answer

Want to see the full answer?

Check out a sample textbook solution

See solution

Students have asked these similar questions

homas Persson and Jon Nokes founded Smart Inventions, Inc., to market household consumer products. The success of their first product, the Smart Mop, continued with later products, which were sold through infomercials and other means. Persson and Nokes were the firm’s officers and equal shareholders. Persson was responsible for product development, and Nokes was in charge of day-to-day operations. In time, they became dissatisfied with each other’s efforts. Nokes represented the firm as financially “dying,” “in a grim state, . . . worse than ever,” and offered to buy all of Persson’s shares for $1.6 million. Persson accepted.On the day that they signed the agreement to transfer the shares, Smart Inventions began marketing a new product—the Tap Light. It was an instant success, generating millions of dollars in revenues. In negotiating with Persson, Nokes had intentionally kept the Tap Light a secret. Persson sued Smart Inventions, asserting fraud and other claims. Under what principle…

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?

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.