Everest Investors 8 v. McNeil Partners

Good Law
114 Cal. App. 4th 411·2003 Cal. App. LEXIS 1862·2003 Daily Journal DAR 13688·8 Cal. Rptr. 3d 31·2003 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 10871
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaDecember 16, 2003B159267California8,034 words

Opinion

Opinion

Mallano, J.

A real estate limited partnership merges into a new entity, becoming a wholly owned subsidiary of the new entity. The interests of the limited partners are liquidated or cashed out, while the general partner retains an equity interest in the postmerger entity, which then sells the assets of the limited partnership to third parties for more than the assets were valued for purposes of the cashout and merger. Under those circumstances, we hold that a limited partner’s claim against the general partner—that the merger transaction harms the limited partner by undervaluing its partnership interest or by depriving it of the future earnings and growth generated by the assets of the limited partnership—is individual in nature. The claim is not derivative because it is not based on any injury to the limited partnership or its assets, both of which survive the merger transaction intact.

Accordingly, we reverse the summary judgment in favor of defendants because the trial court erroneously determined that the claims asserted by plaintiffs limited partners are not individual but derivative in nature, and because triable issues of fact exist with respect to the defense of the business…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.