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) an oppression claim must be brought...
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 context in which a...
Last month, we discussed the Michigan Supreme Court’s decision in Madugula v. Taub, 2014 Mich. LEXIS 1281 (July 15, 2014), in which the Court held that shareholder oppression claims, including those seeking damages, can only be tried before judges sitting as courts of equity. This month, we focus on one of the strategic implications of that decision: does Madugula apply to limited liability...
On January 2, 2013, the Michigan Legislature enacted new legislation that can have the effect of “trumping” the previous six-month discovery rule applicable to attorney malpractice claims.
Previously, legal malpractice claims were subject to a two-year statute of limitations (two years from the last date of service performed by the attorney), with a six-month “discovery rule” exception. That...
