Want access to unlimited case records and advanced research tools? Create your free CasePortal account now. No credit card required to register.
Try CasePortal for FreeJ. Gould agrees in part with the intermediate court's decision that a son's allegation of stockholder oppression is sufficient in a suit he brought against his parents' food distribution firm. The son had a share equal to that of his brother, and he was promoted quickly. His father moved to Thailand and the board made the brother president of the firm against the son's wishes. When the son attempted to get information from human resources for a dividend study, his brother and their mother blocked the request, and the son was fired shortly thereafter. As the son was an employee and a stockholder, his family's conduct foiled his logical expectations of remaining employed, input as a manager and receiving shareholder profits, which is sufficient to proceed. However, the son fails to successfully argue breach of fiduciary duty and unjust enrichment. Affirmed in part.