Michigan Supreme Court Clarifies Statute of Limitations Periods for  Oppression Claims and When Oppression Claims Accrue
201707.11
0
0

Michigan Supreme Court Clarifies Statute of Limitations Periods for Oppression Claims and When Oppression Claims Accrue

In Frank v. Linkner (Case No. 151888, May 15, 2017), the Michigan Supreme Court recently clarified when LLC member “oppression” claims accrue and the limitations periods applicable to those claims. The Court held (i) that the limitation periods in MCL 450.4515(1)(e), the LLC “oppression” statute, are statutes of limitation and not statutes of repose, (ii)…

Commercial Non-Competes And Employment Non-Competes – A Distinction With A Difference
201705.04
0
0

Commercial Non-Competes And Employment Non-Competes – A Distinction With A Difference

Commercial litigators are usually familiar with non-compete agreements, which generally restrict a person from engaging in a competing business within a certain geographical area for a certain time period. Michigan Courts have long recognized that these agreements are enforceable if they are reasonable. But in a recent decision the Michigan Supreme Court held that the…

“FIXED BY THE COURT”
201705.04
0
0

“FIXED BY THE COURT”

In Barton-Spencer v. Farm Bureau Life Ins Co of Michigan, ____ Mich ____ (2014) (Case Nos. 153655 and 153656, April 14, 2017), the Michigan Supreme Court recently held that by signing a contract providing for attorney fees and costs “as may be fixed by the court”, the parties agreed to have the amount of reasonable…

Eavesdropping Under Michigan Law
201611.16
0
0

Eavesdropping Under Michigan Law

Every so often the issue of “eavesdropping” comes up in a lawyer’s practice.  Perhaps a client has recorded, or wants to record, a conversation with another party (most often a spouse, business partner or contracting party) or had their own conversation recorded by another party.  Or maybe it is the lawyer who wants to record…

The Rejection of “Sham Affidavits”
201611.16
0
0

The Rejection of “Sham Affidavits”

Let’s say that you took the opposing party’s deposition and were able to obtain what you believe are very damaging admissions.  You then file a summary disposition motion under MCR 2.116(C)(10) based on those admissions.  When your opponent files a brief in opposition, she supports it with an affidavit from her client that contradicts the…

Enforcement of Non-Competes
201609.12
0
0

Enforcement of Non-Competes

It is well established that non-compete agreements in employment contracts are enforceable if they meant the requirements of MCL 445.774a of the Michigan Antitrust Reform Act (“MARA”).  But what about non-compete agreements that do not arise in the employment context?  In Brillart v. Danneffel, 36 Mich. App. 359 (1971), the Court of Appeals ruled that…

Piercing the Corporate Veil
201609.12
0
0

Piercing the Corporate Veil

Plaintiffs frequently seek to pierce the corporate veil of companies against whom judgments may be or have been obtained in an attempt to extend liability to the defendants’ principals.  Is piercing the corporate veil a viable cause of action separate from the underlying claims that seek to impose liability on the defendant entity?  When can…