Lipper Holdings v. Trident Holdings
N.Y. App. Div.
Citation analytics
How this case sits in the citation network, derived from CiteLaw's graph of published opinions.
Citations by decade
Courts citing this case
Most recently cited by10
- 2022Ambac Assurance Corporation v. US Bank National Association S.D.N.Y.
- 2020EMR (USA Holdings) Inc. v. Goldberg S.D.N.Y.
- 2020The Bank of New York Mellon, London Branch v. CART 1, LTD. S.D.N.Y.
- 2020ExxonMobil Oil Corporation v. TIG Insurance Company S.D.N.Y.
- 2018Wilder v. World of Boxing LLC S.D.N.Y.
- 2018Alpha Capital Anstalt v. Real Goods Solar, Inc. S.D.N.Y.
- 2017UMB Bank, National Ass'n v. Airplanes Ltd. S.D.N.Y.
- 2016CFS International Capital Corp. v. United States Fed. Cl.
- 2015Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Wrights Mill Holdings, LLC S.D.N.Y.
- 2014CP III Rincon Towers, Inc. v. Cohen S.D.N.Y.
Cites 3 cases
- Elsky v. Hearst Corp.
- 833 Northern Corp. v. Tashlik & Associates, P. C.
- Rentways, Inc. v. O'Neill Milk & Cream Co.
Counts reflect decisions in the CiteLaw corpus and may lag very recent opinions.
Opinion
In the Matter of Lipper Holdings, LLC, Respondent-Appellant, v Trident Holdings, LLC, et al., Appellants-Respondents.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Karla Moskowitz, J.), entered April 11, 2003, which, inter alia, approved in part petitioner’s plan for distribution of the net cash assets of the investment fund limited partnerships, and held that the general partner must repay certain incentive compensation, that it must allocate negative balances in the limited partners’ capital accounts to its own account, and that it should be replaced as the liquidating trustee, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
We agree with Supreme Court’s cogent analysis of the limited partnership agreements. Reading the agreements as a whole (Rentways, Inc. v O’Neill Milk & Cream Co., 308 NY 342, 347 [1955]), the reasonable discretion accorded to the general partner to revalue the limited partners’ capital accounts at the end of an accounting period is appropriately construed to encompass the correction of erroneous historical values. Restricting the exercise of such discretion to the final accounting period, as urged by those limited partners opposing the distribution plan, would bestow a windfall on certain limited partners and unfairly permit the general partner to retain incentive compensation, based entirely on phantom profits. A contract should not be interpreted to produce a result that is absurd (see Tougher Heating & Plumbing Co. v State of New York, 73 AD2d 732 [1979]), commercially unreasonable (see Elsky v Hearst Corp., 232 AD2d 310, 311 [1996]; Madison Murray Assoc. v Perlbinder, 215 AD2d 204 [1995], lv denied 88 NY2d 810 [1996]) or contrary to the reasonable expectations of the parties (see 833 N. Corp. v Tashlik & Assoc., 256 AD2d 535, 537 [1998]).
We have considered the parties’ other contentions for affirmative relief and find them unavailing. Concur—Tom, J.P., Saxe, Rosenberger, Williams and Gonzalez, JJ.