by Jonathan Klavens, Courtney Feeley Karp, and Elizabeth Mason
 As it becomes more challenging to develop large-scale solar projects in Massachusetts, it is worth taking a closer look at “dual use” or “agrivoltaic” projects – solar projects designed with specially elevated and spaced solar panels to allow for continued agricultural use of the land beneath. Some view solar development on “greenfield” sites (open space, forested land, farmland) as less desirable than installing solar on rooftops, parking lots, brownfields, and other previously developed sites. Agrivoltaic projects present an important opportunity to install additional clean energy generation in Massachusetts without the trade-offs often associated with greenfield development. Any solar project where farmland is converted to exclusive solar use gives the landowner the opportunity to supplement farm income by renting out a portion of the land to a solar developer. An agrivoltaic project can provide supplemental income without loss of farmland; it can even lead to the creation of new farmland or more active use of existing farmland, such as upgrading a hayfield to a vegetable farm. An agrivoltaic project can also play a dual role in the fight against climate change: increasing the share of energy generated from carbon-free sources while also promoting regenerative agriculture, the cultivation of plants and healthy soil that can help reduce the atmosphere’s existing carbon load. This article looks at three different regulatory frameworks that impact the development of agrivoltaic projects in Massachusetts: zoning; the Commonwealth’s solar incentive program; and taxation of agricultural land.
Local Permitting of Solar Projects
Like other commercial solar projects in Massachusetts, agrivoltaic projects face an array of permitting requirements. We will focus on the zoning landscape with special attention to several trends and dilemmas.
While state law limits the application of local zoning to solar facilities and both the Land Court and Superior Court have had occasion to interpret that law in recent years, there remains a good deal of confusion about the permissible scope of local zoning authority over solar projects. Zoning regulation of solar projects is limited by M.G.L. c. 40A, § 3 (“Section 3”), which provides that “[n]o zoning ordinance or by-law shall prohibit or unreasonably regulate the installation of solar energy systems or the building of structures that facilitate the collection of solar energy, except where necessary to protect the public health, safety or welfare.” Section 3 evidences the legislature’s intent to protect solar facilities from certain local zoning restrictions but when and to what extent?
Many zoning bylaws do not mention solar energy use (or any broader use that would include solar energy use). Given that zoning bylaws almost universally prohibit uses that are not expressly permitted, this means that in the first instance solar would be prohibited under a bylaw that is silent as to solar use. In turn, however, one Land Court decision held that Section 3 would ordinarily preempt that prohibition, effectively rendering solar use a use allowed by right.
Notwithstanding Section 3, more and more municipalities are adopting solar bylaws that regulate solar projects in one or more ways. Some provide that solar projects are allowed by right in certain zoning districts, with or without a requirement for site plan approval (a mechanism for imposing reasonable conditions on as-of-right uses). Others provide that solar projects are allowed by special permit in certain districts. Still other solar bylaws purport to prohibit solar use in certain districts. Where solar facilities are allowed, a solar bylaw often lays out special dimensional and other requirements, such as requirements for vegetative screening or for posting of financial assurance to cover the costs of removing the facility at the end of its useful life. Larger scale ground mounted solar projects are often the only subject of solar bylaws or are subject to more extensive requirements than other types of solar facilities.
With the proliferation of solar bylaws, questions have arisen about the extent to which they are enforceable in light of Section 3. In its role as reviewer of the legality of new bylaws, the Office of the Attorney General has admonished municipalities to consult with counsel to ensure they do not run afoul of Section 3, but has not rejected any solar bylaw as facially inconsistent with Section 3. In addition, courts have offered some guidance, providing several prospective “rules of thumb” to local zoning boards and solar developers. For example, although a special permit granting authority (“SPGA”) can ordinarily exercise broad discretion to deny a special permit, it likely cannot do so outside the bounds of Section 3. Moreover, certain bylaw requirements (or permit conditions) may be inconsistent with Section 3 on an as-applied basis because they effectively prohibit a project or are not “necessary to protect public health, safety or welfare.” For example, given the benign nature of a typical ground mount solar facility it might be difficult to justify a 200-foot setback requirement as necessary to protect public health, safety or welfare.
It is also unclear under Section 3 under what circumstances a municipality may allow solar energy use in certain districts while prohibiting it in others. There are two keys ways of viewing this issue through the lens of Section 3. One view is that if a municipality allows solar energy use in at least some locations, it cannot be deemed to have “prohibit[ed]” solar use within the meaning of Section 3. The alternative view is that Section 3 bars a municipality from prohibiting solar energy projects even in just a single district “except where necessary to protect public health, safety or welfare.” Id. While an initial Land Court decision seemed to provide some support for the first view, two subsequent clarifying Land Court decisions have endorsed the second.
In Briggs v. Zoning Board of Appeals of Marion, the Marion Zoning Board of Appeals argued that, as long as commercial solar energy use was allowed in some zoning districts, it could still be prohibited in a residential district consistent with Section 3. The court appeared to accept this reasoning, finding that it is “rational” and “reasonable” to prohibit commercial solar energy systems in residential districts, even though Section 3 expressly bars any prohibition of solar energy systems – not just irrational or unreasonable prohibition of solar energy systems – “except where necessary to protect the public health, safety or welfare.” Id. The court noted that the board made no findings on the impact of the proposed project on public health, safety or welfare, id. at *2, nor did the court in its de novo review make any such findings, see id. at *4-5.
In Duseau v. Szawloski Realty, Inc., issued nearly a year later, the court reached a similar conclusion, but only because it determined that the defendant solar developer had the burden of proving that the prohibition of solar energy use in the town’s rural residential district was not necessary to protect public health, safety and welfare and the developer never even argued the issue.
More recently, in PLH LLC v. Town of Ware, the court ruled that a municipality could not require, and then could not deny or condition, a special permit for a solar project in a particular district “except where necessary to protect the health, safety or welfare.” Notably, it appears that no court has yet concluded that a prohibition of solar energy use, or a denial of a permit for solar energy use, has been necessary to protect public health, safety or welfare under Section 3. Given that many larger solar projects are now operating (including many in residential districts) across Massachusetts, and that many municipalities that have hosted such projects are supportive of additional solar development, it seems likely that the parties to future litigation on this point will have a good deal of experience from which to draw.
In short, developers of larger solar projects must navigate local land use regulation and differing interpretations of Section 3 as to which aspects of local regulation are actually enforceable. Meeting the Commonwealth’s clean energy goals will likely require more balanced regulation and more certainty about how municipalities can lawfully regulate clean energy projects.
SMART Program Incentives for Agrivoltaic Projects
The Solar Massachusetts Renewable Target Program (the “SMART Program”) implemented by the Massachusetts Department of Energy Resources (“DOER”) provides a base financial incentive for production of each unit of solar energy from eligible projects in Massachusetts. The SMART Program regulations also offer extra incentives known as “adders” to promote certain types of projects, such as solar carports, solar on landfills, and community solar facilities. Agrivoltaic facilities, referred to as Agricultural Solar Tariff Generation Units (“ASGTUs”) in the regulations, are the target of one such adder. In addition to providing adders for preferred project types, the SMART Program also has what are called “greenfield subtractors” which reduce the incentive payments for solar facilities located on greenfield sites. ASTGUs are not subject to the subtractor given that the land on which they are located will continue to be farmed. ASTGUs are also exempt from strict new rules adopted in July 2020 that generally bar solar facilities from participating in the SMART Program if they are located on land designated as priority habitat, core habitat, or critical natural landscape as identified by the Massachusetts Division of Fisheries and Wildlife BioMap2 framework with the Commonwealth’s Natural Heritage and Endangered Species Program.
At the same time, the process and standards for qualification of a SMART ASTGU are quite rigorous under state regulations and guidelines. For example, the reduction of direct sunlight relating to an ASTGU cannot exceed 50% – measured on every square foot of the project site. While a SMART facility can generally be up to 5 MW AC in size, under the current ASTGU Guideline an ASTGU would typically be capped at just 2 MW AC. Id. at 3. The current regulations also contain a number of other requirements including continuous growth, growing plans, and productivity reports. 225 C.M.R. 20.06(1) (d)(3), (5); ASTGU Guideline at 3. While it is important to ensure that there are not significant detrimental effects on agriculture from an ASTGU, there could be many appropriate reasons for reduced productivity, such as a drought year or appropriate crop rotation. The approval process thus far has raised questions about the appropriate baseline for measuring impacts, determining which impacts to attribute to the solar facility or to other causes, what type or magnitude of impact would result in disqualification of an ASTGU or removal of its adder.
There may well be many more types of symbiotic solar and agricultural uses that do not fit within the current requirements for ASTGUs. For example, mushroom cultivation, beekeeping and animal husbandry are all farming activities that might benefit from shade reduction greater than 50%. The state’s Department of Energy Resources (“DOER”) has a process for seeking waivers for unique and worthwhile alternatives but obtaining an exception is not easy, quick or predictable.
Based on experience gleaned from processing ASTGU applications for almost two years, DOER has recently issued a “straw proposal” to modify the guideline governing qualification of ASTGU projects. Among other things, the straw proposal raises the possibility of allowing for ASTGUs of up to 5 MW AC in certain instances and streamlining the approval process by permitting qualification by a third party organization, which should increase speed and predictability for approval of project designs. This change would provide greater certainty for the financing of these projects and allow the full range of potential climate change benefits to come to fruition.
Property Tax Incentives for Land in Agricultural/Horticultural Use
Land in active agricultural or horticultural use is entitled under M.G.L. c. 61A (“Chapter 61A”) to reduced property tax rates. Chapter 61A land that is converted from agricultural to commercial use must be removed from Chapter 61A. So what happens when Chapter 61A land serves as the site of an agrivoltaic facility?
Before land is to be removed from Chapter 61A, the landowner must deliver to the municipality a notice of intent to convert. Such notices are accompanied by plans showing the total acreage that will cease to be farmed (the “Converted Land”) and the balance of the land that will continue to be farmed (the “Remaining Land”). The Converted Land is removed from Chapter 61A and the landowner pays roll-back taxes (and, if applicable, conveyance taxes) in connection with this removal. The Remaining Land should remain eligible for reduced taxation under Chapter 61A.
There is currently some confusion about the applicability of Chapter 61A to land under agrivoltaic facilities in light of the existence of Section 2A of Chapter 61A. Section 2A was inserted by the legislature in 2016 to address situations where ground mounted solar facilities are installed on farmland, precluding use of the land under the solar panels for agricultural or horticultural use but generating power used for the operation of the farm. Section 2A allows owners of agricultural or horticultural land who install a “renewable energy generating source” on their land which meets the requirements of Section 2A to maintain all of their land as agricultural or horticultural land under Chapter 61A, even the land that is exclusively occupied by the solar array and can no longer be farmed. Section 2A is not relevant to agrivoltaic facilities because they involve installation of solar panels above land which will continue to be farmed.
Land under and around an agrivoltaic facility is instead governed by Sections 1 and 2 of Chapter 61A. Section 1 states that land shall be considered to be in agricultural use when “primarily and directly used in raising animals, including, but not limited to, dairy cattle, beef cattle, poultry, sheep, swine, horses, ponies, mules, goats, bees and fur-bearing animals, for the purpose of selling such animals or a product derived from such animals in the regular course of business.” Section 2 states that land shall be considered to be in horticultural use when “primarily and directly used in raising fruits, vegetables, berries, nuts and other foods for human consumption for the purpose of selling these products in the regular course of business.” The Remaining Land at the site of an agrivoltaic facility, which will continue to be farmed, meets these definitions.
Note that farming the land underneath and surrounding the solar arrays of an agrivoltaic facility is something that, as noted above, facility owners are required to do under the SMART Program in order for the facilities to qualify for – and stay qualified as –ASTGUs under that program. If in the future the owner ceases farming the land underneath and surrounding the solar arrays and uses it for a non-qualifying purpose, the land would then lose eligibility for classification under Chapter 61A.
Chapter 61A and the publications of the Massachusetts Department of Revenue’s Division of Local Services (“DLS”) are clear that it is the use of the land that determines whether or not land is eligible for classification under Chapter 61A. Section 20 of a set of FAQs published by DLS states that, in the case of solar facilities that (like the agrivoltaic projects discussed here) don’t meet the requirements of Section 2A, only land “necessary for the operation of” the solar facility or “impacted by its operation” is ineligible for continued classification under Chapter 61A. The Converted Land at the site of an agrivoltaic facility meets this definition and is the portion of the land no longer eligible for taxation under Chapter 61A. The Remaining Land is not “necessary for the operation of” the solar facilities. It will continue to be farmed and should remain eligible for classification under Chapter 61A.
Whether land under and around an agrivoltaic facility can remain in Chapter 61A can have a significant impact on the economic viability of an agrivoltaic project. If land under an agrivoltaic project is not allowed to remain in Chapter 61A, that may not just mean that the project would have to be able to support higher property taxes (potentially reducing benefits to the farmer) but could also raise questions about the project’s ability to operate as an ASTGU under the SMART Program. An agrivoltaic project can qualify as an ASTGU if it is on land currently enrolled in Chapter 61A or land that has been in Chapter 61A in the previous five years. 225 C.M.R. 20.02 (definitions of ASTGU and Land in Agricultural Use). If a project also needs a waiver under the ASTGU Guideline, however, it must demonstrate that “the primary use of the land is for agricultural or horticultural production, as defined under [Chapter 61A].” ASTGU Guideline at 4. If the land is removed from Chapter 61A because of hosting the ASTGU, the rationale for such removal would presumably be that the primary use is no longer agricultural or horticultural. This would create tension rather than synergies between laws, and would highlight the importance of interagency coordination to further the Commonwealth’s policy goals, particularly with respect to climate change. Removing any uncertainty about this issue will be important to the growth of agrivoltaic facilities and the environmental and economic benefits that flow from them.
Development of larger scale solar projects is a challenging venture, and development of agrivoltaic projects involves special challenges and special opportunities. Overcoming those challenges and realizing those opportunities requires harmonization of and certainty in land use regulation, financial incentive qualification, and property taxation. Striking the right balance would be a victory for sensible land use planning, support of local agriculture, and the transition to a clean energy future.
 The authors would like to thank Sarah Matthews, senior counsel at Klavens Law Group, P.C., and Jaidyn Jackson, law student intern at Klavens Law Group, P.C., for their valuable contributions to this article.
 See Waller v. Alqaraghuli, No. 17 MISC 000233, 2017 WL 3380387, at *4 (Mass. Land Ct. Aug. 4, 2017) (Scheier, J.). Although Section 3 does allow regulation of solar facilities as “necessary to protect the public health, safety or welfare,” in the case of a local zoning bylaw whose prohibition of solar use is preempted, a local zoning board cannot then choose to regulate solar use “by a case-by-case determination by the Board.” Id. at *5 n.7.
 See, e.g., Letter from the Office of the Attorney General Municipal Law Unit to Town of Plympton, at 2 (Apr. 3, 2020) , https://massago.onbaseonline.com/MASSAGO/1801PublicAccess/mlu.htm) (input Case Number “9750”; then click “Search”; then follow hyperlink) (advising Town that, [i]n applying [solar bylaw amendments] the Town should consult closely with Town Counsel to ensure that the Town does not run afoul of [Section 3]”).
 See PLH LLC v. Town of Ware, No. 18 MISC 000648, 2019 WL 7201712, at *3 (Mass. Land. Ct. Dec. 24, 2019) (Piper, C.J.) (holding that zoning bylaw may require a special permit for solar energy use in a particular district but special permit review “must be limited and narrowly applied in a way that is not unreasonable, is not designed or employed to prohibit the use or the operation of the protected use, and exists where necessary to protect the health, safety or welfare”); cf. Waller at n.7 (suggesting that municipal authority under Section 3 to regulate solar use as necessary to protect public health, safety and welfare can only be exercised in crafting a generally applicable bylaw, not to justify case-by-case determination with respect to particular projects).
 See, e.g., Ayotte v. Town of Cheshire Planning Board, CA No. 17-275, slip. op. at 9-13 (Mass. Sup. Ct. May 4, 2018) (Ford, J.) (refusing to uphold planning board’s denial of special permit for solar project based on concerns about solar glare and inadequate screening and remanding to the board “for the consideration and imposition of any reasonable conditions”) (emphasis in original).
 Briggs v. Zoning Board of Appeals of Marion, No. 13 MISC 477257, 2014 WL 471951 at *4 (Mass. Land Ct. Feb. 6, 2014) (Sands, J.).
 Duseau v. Szawloski Realty, Inc., Nos. 12 MISC 470612, 12 MISC 477351, 2015 WL 59500 at *8 (Mass. Land Ct. Jan. 2, 2015) (Cutler, C.J.); PLH LLC, 2019 WL 7201712 at *3.
 Briggs, 2014 WL 471951 at *4.
 Duseau, 2015 WL 59500 at *8 & n.11.
 PLH LLC, 2019 WL 7201712 at *3.
 See 225 CMR 20.07(4)(g); Mass. Dep’t of Energy Resources, Guideline Regarding Land Use, Siting, and Project Segmentation at §§ 3, 4(b) (revised Oct. 8, 2020) (the “Land Use Guideline”).
 See Land Use Guideline, §§ 5(4)-(5).
 See 225 CMR 20.02 (definition of Agricultural Solar Tariff Generation Unit) and 20.06(1)(d) (eligibility requirements); Guideline Regarding the Definition of Agricultural Solar Tariff Generation Units (the “ASTGU Guideline”).
 In addition, Sections 14(A) and (B) of the FAQs state that any roll-back and conveyance tax are to be assessed “only on that portion of the land on which the use has changed to the non-qualifying use.”
Jonathan Klavens is the principal of Klavens Law Group, P.C. He practices across the fields of corporate, land use and environmental law, with a special focus on the development, financing and purchase and sale of clean energy projects, as well as the formation, financing and ongoing support of cleantech companies.
Courtney Feeley Karp is senior counsel at Klavens Law Group, P.C. where she advises clients on development and compliance matters for clean energy projects, including those located on agricultural land. Previously she served as counsel at the Massachusetts Department of Energy Resources and the Massachusetts Senate Ways & Means Committee.
Betsy Mason is senior counsel at Klavens Law Group, P.C., where she focuses her practice on resolving real estate, land use and permitting, and environmental compliance issues arising during the development, construction and acquisition of renewable energy projects. Her past positions have included, among others, in-house counsel for real estate and business development at a leading national solar developer and Senior Assistant Regional Counsel at EPA Region 1 in Boston.
Where a company chooses to incorporate directly affects the fiduciary duties imposed upon its leadership and shareholders. Under the internal affairs doctrine, the law of the state in which a company is incorporated applies to disputes over the company’s internal workings, regardless of where the company is actually based or where the alleged conduct occurred. Consequently, the distinctions between Massachusetts and Delaware corporate law take on particular importance in the context of closely held corporations and LLCs, where each state’s case law and statutes uniquely impact the imposition of fiduciary duties and the extent to which such duties can be contractually waived. Understanding these differences is essential to making informed decisions on business formation and litigation strategy.
Fiduciary Duties In Closely Held Corporations
In both Massachusetts and Delaware, a corporate fiduciary, such as a director, generally owes a duty of care and a duty of loyalty, both of which impose a responsibility to act in the best interests of the corporation and/or its shareholders. Specifically, the duty of care requires a fiduciary to act in an informed and reasonable manner, and the duty of loyalty requires a fiduciary to act in good faith with the primary intent of furthering the best interests of the company. In the context of closely held corporations, including LLCs, Massachusetts and Delaware take divergent approaches as to whether shareholders may owe each other additional or enhanced fiduciary duties.
In Donahue v. Rodd Electrotype Co. of New England, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court held that a “close corporation” is typically one in which there is “(1) a small number of stockholders; (2) no ready market for the corporate stock; and (3) substantial majority stockholder participation in the management, direction and operations of the corporation.” The Donahue Court then held that “[s]tockholders in close corporations must discharge their management and stockholder responsibilities” under a standard of utmost good faith and loyalty.
Therefore, a controlling group of shareholders in a close corporation “may not, consistent with its strict duty to the minority, utilize its control of the corporation to obtain special advantages and disproportionate benefit from its share ownership.” Even if the majority shareholders demonstrate a legitimate business purpose for their actions, minority shareholders may still maintain a claim if they can establish that the same business purpose could have been achieved in an alternative manner less harmful to the minority. Importantly, minority shareholders in Massachusetts close corporations also owe fiduciary duties and may not intentionally engage in corporate conduct to their own personal advantage that is detrimental to the corporation and its other shareholders.
In Massachusetts, where a minority shareholder has a reasonable expectation of continued employment within a closely held company, the termination of such minority shareholder’s employment may be considered a “freeze-out” and, as such, be a breach of the majority shareholders’ fiduciary duties. In this regard, the remedy for a breach of a majority shareholder against the minority shareholder is, to the extent possible, to “restore to the minority shareholder those benefits which she reasonably expected, but has not received because of the fiduciary breach.” Massachusetts courts have the ability to award monetary damages, as well as impose a wide range of equitable remedies, such as reinstating corporate officers, forcing the distribution of dividends or even amending corporate operating agreements.
In contrast, a closely held Delaware company must be specifically incorporated as a “close corporation.” Even when incorporated as such, shareholders generally will not owe each other fiduciary duties unless the articles of incorporation or an agreement among the shareholders imposes such duties.  Consequently, the “protections afforded to minority stockholders in closely-held corporations under Delaware common law are no different than those in publicly-held corporations.” 
Majority shareholders in a closely held Delaware corporation, or shareholders who otherwise exert control over the close corporation, may act in a manner that unintentionally harms the interests of minority shareholders as long as such actions do not contravene the best interests of the corporation itself. The same holds true in the context of Delaware LLCs, except that managing members still owe fiduciary duties to the company and its passive members. However, if majority/controlling shareholders are found to have engaged in a transaction in which they would uniquely benefit, such shareholders must demonstrate that the transaction was entirely fair to the corporation, in terms of both price and dealing, and conducted with the utmost good faith. In Delaware, remedies for such breaches usually are limited to either monetary damages or equitable rescission of the contested transaction.
Contractually Limiting Fiduciary Duties
Contracts, which govern shareholder conduct, may supersede common law or statutory fiduciary duties. In Massachusetts, “[a]lthough a shareholder in a close corporation always owes a fiduciary duty to fellow shareholders, good faith compliance with the terms of an agreement entered into by the shareholders satisfies that fiduciary duty.” Consequently, claims for breach of fiduciary duty with respect to things such as employment or stock purchases may only arise when a prior agreement among the parties “does not entirely govern the shareholder’s actions.” To the extent an agreement does not directly address an issue, fiduciary duties apply.
In the LLC context, Massachusetts allows for greater flexibility regarding the limitation of fiduciary duties. Massachusetts Gen. Laws c. 156C, § 63, specifically provides that “[t]o the extent that, at law or in equity, a member or manager has duties, including fiduciary duties, and liabilities relating thereto to a limited liability company or to another member or manager . . . the member’s or manager’s duties and liabilities may be expanded or restricted by provisions in the operating agreement.” Additionally, “[t]he certificate of organization or a written operating agreement may eliminate or limit the personal liability of a member or manager for breach of any duty to the limited liability company or to another member or manager.” Contractual language limiting or modifying fiduciary duties “should be strictly, not expansively, construed.”
In JFF Cecilia LLC v. Weiner Ventures, for example, the plaintiff and defendant were members of a Massachusetts LLC that was primarily formed to develop a large real estate project. The plaintiff asserted claims based on the defendant’s failure to provide notice that it was publicly announcing the canceling of the development project.  The Superior Court recognized the enforceability of a clause in the LLC agreement, which stated that its members owed no fiduciary duties to the company or each other “except to the extent such duties are expressly set forth in this Agreement.” The court, however, found that the plaintiff still had a cause of action based on another section of the agreement, which imposed a duty upon its members to “consult with one another openly, fairly and in good faith,” to “work collaboratively” and to “use their reasonable efforts to keep one another informed of all known and material information with respect to” the company. Likewise, in Butler v. Moore, the relevant LLC agreement stated that its members were not “obligated to present an investment opportunity to the Company even if it is similar to or consistent with the business of the Company. . . [and they had the] right to take for their own account or recommend to others any such investment opportunity.” Nonetheless, the court refused to interpret such provisions as allowing its members to take, “for their own personal benefit,” those opportunities that already had been presented to the company. 
Similar to Massachusetts, in Delaware where a corporate “dispute arises from obligations that are expressly addressed by contract, that dispute will be treated as a breach of contract claim . . . [and] any fiduciary claims arising out of the same facts that underlie the contract obligations would be foreclosed as superfluous.” Likewise, Delaware statutorily allows provisions in LLC agreements in which a member or director’s fiduciary duties are “expanded or restricted or eliminated.” For example, in Marubeni Spar One, LLC v. Williams Field Servs. – Gulf Coast Co., L.P., the Chancery Court dismissed a claim for breach of fiduciary duty because the LLC agreement stated that the “Operating Member shall have no liability under this Agreement or otherwise to the Company or any Member for any actions taken in its capacity as Operating Member or for any actions it fails to take unless it breaches its obligations under this Agreement as a result of its gross negligence, fraud or willful misconduct.”
Although parties to a Delaware LLC agreement are not allowed to waive “the implied contractual covenant of good faith and fair dealing,” even this limitation is narrowly applied. As the Chancery Court explained, when an LLC “agreement eliminates fiduciary duties as part of a detailed contractual governance scheme, Delaware courts should be all the more hesitant to resort to the implied covenant. . . . “[r]especting the elimination of fiduciary duties requires that courts not bend an alternative and less powerful tool into a fiduciary substitute.”
Both Massachusetts and Delaware allow closely held corporations and LLCs to indemnify their directors and managers for any defense costs, settlements or judgments, which might arise from an alleged breach of their fiduciary duties. Pursuant to Mass. Gen. Laws c. 156D, § 8.51, a corporation may indemnify a director against any liability as long as the director: (1) has acted in “good faith;” (2) “reasonably believed that his conduct was in the best interests of the corporation or that his conduct was at least not opposed to the best interests of the corporation;” and (3) “had no reasonable cause to believe [the ] conduct was unlawful.” Massachusetts law also mandates that a corporation indemnify a director for their defenses costs if such director “was wholly successful, on the merits or otherwise, in the defense of any proceeding to which he was a party.”
In the context of LLCs, Massachusetts law provides even wider latitude in determining the scope of indemnification. Indeed, the burden of denying indemnification may be placed on the company. LLCs can indemnify their members and managers “against any and all claims and demands whatsoever,” without having to establish that the member actually acted in good faith or with any particular intention or knowledge. An LLC may not provide any form of indemnification if the member or manager is specifically found in the course of a proceeding “not to have acted in good faith in the reasonable belief that his action was in the best interest of the limited liability company.”
In Delaware, the circumstance under which a corporation may indemnify a director is similar to Massachusetts in that the person must have acted in good faith with the reasonable belief that he, she or they were acting in the best interest of the corporation, and with no reason to believe his, her or their conduct was unlawful. Delaware corporations are required to provide indemnity for defense costs incurred by qualified individuals who succeed on the merits of their case. Delaware provides additional statutory guidance to determine when a person qualifies for indemnification. In this regard, the termination of an action by judgment, order or settlement (except where such judgment is based on a guilty plea) “shall not, of itself, create a presumption that the person did not act in” a manner entitling him, her or them to indemnification. A company cannot provide any indemnification if a person has “been adjudged to be liable to the corporation unless and only to the extent that the” relevant court makes a separate determination that despite such judgment the person is still entitled to indemnification.
In Delaware, “[n]o criteria are established by statute to govern the indemnification that limited liability companies may offer.” Pursuant to 6 Del. C. § 18-108, “a limited liability company may, and shall have the power to, indemnify and hold harmless any member or manager or other person from and against any and all claims and demands whatsoever.” The statute “defers completely to the contracting parties to create and delimit rights and obligations with respect to indemnification and advancement,” and does not in itself create any right or limits to indemnification.
In the context of closely held corporations, Massachusetts and Delaware take somewhat divergent approaches to the imposition and waiver of fiduciary duties among shareholders. Shareholders in closely held Massachusetts companies owe each other heightened fiduciary duties, and such duties can only be eliminated by contractual agreements that specifically address the duties or situations under which such duties may arise. Consequently, founders of, or investors in, closely held companies who seek heightened protections against the potential misconduct of their fellow shareholders, may favor Massachusetts incorporation. In contrast, shareholders in closely held Delaware companies generally do not owe each other fiduciary duties, and Delaware takes a more expansive approach with respect to allowing the elimination of fiduciary duties that could be imposed upon such shareholders. Accordingly, parties whose priority is to avoid potential liability, or the threat of such liability, from their fellow shareholders, may prefer Delaware incorporation.
In either state, potential shareholders should carefully review any contractual arrangements among the shareholders, including by-laws, purchase agreements and employment contracts. Such contracts may supersede, modify or eliminate what would otherwise be the parties’ default fiduciary duties. Awareness of these key distinctions between Massachusetts and Delaware corporate law is essential to making informed decisions about incorporation, investment and litigation.
 Harrison v. NetCentric Corp., 433 Mass. 465, 471 (2001). The majority of states adhere to the internal affairs doctrine. Notably, California and New York have particular statutory exceptions to the doctrine, which require consideration of whether the company has substantial contacts with the forum state. See Cal. Corp. Code § 2115; N.Y. Bus. Corp. L. §§ 1317–20.
 Donahue v. Rodd Electrotype Co. of New England, 367 Mass. 578, 586 (1975) (holding that the categorization of company as a “close corporation” is a factual inquiry); Allison v. Eriksson, 479 Mass. 626, 636 (2018) (in determining whether an LLC is closely held company, a court also examines the manner “in which a particular LLC is structured”).
 Id. at 593 (1975); Butler v. Moore, No. CIV. 10-10207-FDS, 2015 WL 1409676, at *61 (D. Mass. Mar. 26, 2015) (“As a matter of logic and fairness, there is no reason why the fiduciary duties of members of a closely held LLC should be materially different from those of shareholders of a closely held corporation.”); Blank v. Chelmsford Ob/Gyn, P.C., 420 Mass. 404, 408 (1995) (“They may not act out of avarice, expediency, or self-interest in derogation of their duty of loyalty to the other stockholders and to the corporation.”).
 Donahue, 367 Mass. at 598.
 Wilkes v. Springside Nursing Home, Inc., 370 Mass. 842, 851-52 (1976).
 Donahue, 367 Mass. at 593; Zimmerman v. Bogoff, 402 Mass. 650, 658 (1988)
 Selmark Assocs., Inc. v. Ehrlich, 467 Mass. 525, 536 (2014) (“Freeze-outs can occur when a minority shareholder is deprived of employment.”); Pointer v. Castellani, 455 Mass. 537, 551 (2009).
 Brodie v. Jordan, 447 Mass. 866, 870–71 (2006) (internal quotations omitted)
 Allison v. Eriksson, 479 Mass. at 638.
 Pursuant to Del. Code Ann. tit. 8, § 342, a Delaware company may incorporate as a close corporation. Such corporate form places restrictions on the number of stockholders and types of stock transfers, as well as prohibits any “public offering” of the company’s stock. However, the statute does not impose any additional fiduciary duties.
 Blaustein v. Lord Baltimore Capital Corp., No. CIV.A. 6685-VCN, 2013 WL 1810956, at *14 (Del. Ch. Apr. 30, 2013), aff’d, 84 A.3d 954 (Del. 2014) (explicitly contrasting its view with the approach of Massachusetts courts).
 Id. (citing Gilbert v. El Paso Co., 1988 WL 124325 (Del. Ch. Nov. 21, 1988))
 Feeley v. NHAOCG, LLC, 62 A.3d 649, 662 (Del. Ch. 2012) (“Managers and managing members owe default fiduciary duties; passive members do not.”)
 Nixon v. Blackwell, 626 A.2d 1366, 1376 (Del. 1993)
 Basho Techs. Holdco B, LLC v. Georgetown Basho Inv’rs, LLC, No. CV 11802-VCL, 2018 WL 3326693, at *49 (Del. Ch. July 6, 2018), aff’d sub nom. Davenport v. Basho Techs. Holdco B, LLC, 221 A.3d 100 (Del. 2019).
 Merriam v. Demoulas Super Markets, Inc., 464 Mass. 721, 727 (2013).
 Selmark Assocs., Inc., 467 Mass. at 539 (“[T]o supplant the otherwise applicable fiduciary duties of parties in a close corporation, the terms of a contract must clearly and expressly indicate a departure from those obligations.”).
 Mass. Gen. Laws Ann. ch. 156C, § 63.
 Mass. Gen. Laws Ann. ch. 156C, § 8.
 Butler v. Moore, No. CIV. 10-10207-FDS, 2015 WL 1409676, at *73 (D. Mass. Mar. 26, 2015); Selmark Assocs., 467 Mass. at 539 (2014) (“[T]o supplant the otherwise applicable fiduciary duties of parties in a close corporation, the terms of a contract must clearly and expressly indicate a departure from those obligations.”).
 JFF Cecilia LLC v. Weiner Ventures, LLC, No. 1984CV03317-BLS2, 2020 WL 4464584, at *11 (Mass. Super. July 30, 2020)
 Butler, 2015 WL 1409676, at *73.
 Id. at *74.
 Nemec v. Shrader, 991 A.2d 1120, 1129 (Del. 2010)
 6 Del. C. § 18-1101
 Marubeni Spar One, LLC, 2020 WL 64761 at *10; see In re Sols. Liquidation LLC, 608 B.R. 384, 407 (Bankr. D. Del. 2019) (finding that plaintiffs’ claims for the defendants’ alleged breach duty of loyalty and good faith were precluded by the LLC agreement, which eliminated such duties).
30] 6 Del. C. § 18-1101.
 Lonergan v. EPE Holdings, LLC, 5 A.3d 1008, 1018 (Del. Ch. 2010).
 Mass. Gen. Laws Ann. ch. 156D, § 8.51
 Mass. Gen. Laws Ann. ch. 156D, § 8.52.
 Mass. Gen. Laws Ann. ch. 156C, § 8
 Del. Code Ann. tit. 8, § 145.
Branin v. Stein Roe Inv. Counsel, LLC, No. CIV. A. 8481-VCN, 2014 WL 2961084, at *4 (Del. Ch. June 30, 2014).
 6 Del. C. § 18-108.
 Majkowski v. Am. Imaging Mgmt. Servs., LLC, 913 A.2d 572, 591 (Del. Ch. 2006).
Nicholas Nesgos is a Partner in the Complex Litigation Group at Arent Fox. He handles a wide variety of business disputes including disputes among shareholders in closely held companies.
Benjamin Greene is an Associate in the Complex Litigation Group at Arent Fox LLP. Benjamin represents a range of individual and corporate clients in complex commercial, employment and real estate litigation.
by Hon. John D. Casey
Voice of the Judiciary
I have always considered it an honor to be a part of the Probate and Family Court, first as a practicing attorney, and then as a judge. Now as Chief Justice, I more fully realize and appreciate the special nature of this Court and its judges and staff. I have met with people from every division to discuss my vision for the Court, and, in the process, have learned about their hopes for and commitment to the Court. On a daily basis, the judges and staff rise to the challenges of working in a court that interacts with people during some of the most difficult times in a person’s life.
The Probate and Family Court is different than the other Trial Court departments. Domestic relations litigation and probate litigation are unique in that each case involves a family situation or dynamic and has the potential to span years. In most cases, the parties must continue to interact with each other during and after difficult litigation. Because of this, litigants require compassion and must be treated with dignity and sensitivity. Many need to be educated on court processes because they do not have attorneys to explain what they will encounter and what is expected of them.
The mission of the Probate and Family Court is to “deliver timely justice to the public by providing equal access to a fair, equitable and efficient forum to resolve family and probate legal matters and to assist and protect all individuals, families and children in an impartial and respectful manner.” Since the economic downturn of 2008-2009, the ability of the Court to accomplish this mission has been severely strained. In the ensuing years, the Court relied on judges and staff to go above and beyond, and so many did. In addition, the bar volunteered to help in various ways, such as the Lawyer of the Day program, bar association conciliation programs, and Attorneys Representing Children (ARC) programs, to name a few. The challenges for the Probate and Family Court were noted by Chief Justice Ralph Gants in his State of the Judiciary address in October 2017 when he stated, “The burdens we place on our Probate and Family Court judges are simply not sustainable; we need to reimagine how we do justice in our Probate and Family Court.” To that end, different groups worked toward creative solutions for case management and staffing, while Chief Justice Gants and Chief Justice of the Trial Court Paula Carey advocated for additional funding for the Probate and Family Court at the State House. In the fiscal year 2019 budget, the Court received additional funds to address the specific needs of the Court – the need to hire sessions clerks and legal research and writing staff, the need for case management triage, and the need for alternative dispute resolution resources. I am proud to report that as a result of these additional funds, the Probate and Family Court has taken steps to start the reimagination of the Court, as Chief Justice Gants envisioned.
As part of this process, the Court set a goal of having one sessions clerk for each judge, so that judicial case managers and assistant judicial case managers could then spend their time outside of the courtroom working on case management. With the additional funds, the Court met that goal, hiring sessions clerks throughout the Commonwealth. In addition, three law clerks and two research attorneys have been hired. The Court now has eleven law clerk positions and seven research attorney positions dedicated to assisting the judges with their legal research and writing.
With regard to case management, I plan to solidify and build on ideas that have been discussed for many years. First, I want to emphasize to all staff, judges, and attorneys that every case is not the same, and should not be treated the same. By engaging in the early screening of cases, staff will put each case on its own path, taking into consideration various issues, including whether the case is uncontested or contested, straightforward or complex, whether the parties are self-represented or have counsel, and whether the case is ripe for alternative dispute resolution such as conciliation, mediation, or dispute intervention. Second, litigants will be educated on court processes and referred to services like alternative dispute resolution. This model has proven successful in the Middlesex Division and Essex Division on so-called “block days” with cases that involve child support with the Department of Revenue and also parenting issues. Litigants are referred to on-site mediators who assist the parties in resolving both child support and parenting issues at the same time, and with only one court appearance. We are not the first or only Trial Court department to use differentiated case management. We are, however, the Trial Court department that faces the challenge of implementing a new case management process with a population that is overwhelmingly unrepresented by counsel and that has recurring issues. Training is required to successfully implement these changes to case management. We have begun this process by conducting trainings for sessions clerks and assistant judicial case managers. We will continue to train all members of the Probate and Family Court so that we can rise to the challenges we face and meet our mission.
As I start my second year as Chief Justice, I am aware that nothing we do to improve the Probate and Family Court is done without the help of many different people and organizations – legislators, attorneys, bar associations, staff, judges, Chief Justice Gants, Chief Justice Carey, Court Administrator Jon Williams, and Deputy Court Administrator Linda Medonis. To all of you, I say thank you. Thank you for sharing your ideas about how the Probate and Family Court can be better. Thank you for your patience, as we all know that successful change takes time. But most of all, thank you for supporting me and the staff and judges of the Probate and Family Court as we make changes to enhance everyone’s experience with the Court.
The Honorable John D. Casey was appointed to the Probate and Family Court in 2006 and became the Chief Justice in July 2018. He previously served as the First Justice of the Norfolk Division of the Probate and Family Court. Chief Justice Casey graduated from Bates College and Suffolk University School of Law.
by Pratt Wiley
The Automatic Voter Registration Act (“AVR Act”), St. 2018, c. 205, signed into law in 2018 by Governor Baker, promises to expand the number of enrolled voters able to participate in our democracy by removing some of the administrative burdens of registration. Effective January 1, 2020, AVR will replace the current “opt-in” voter registration system with an “opt-out” system through which the Registry of Motor Vehicles (“RMV”) and MassHealth will identify and add eligible citizens residing in Massachusetts to the voter rolls. Individuals will automatically be registered to vote when they apply for or renew their: (1) driver’s license, (2) state-sponsored health insurance, (3) Medicaid benefits, or (4) complete another qualifying transaction at a future-designated AVR agency. The AVR system will use citizenship information, already collected by AVR agencies to enroll voters. The AVR Act directs the Secretary of State to promulgate implementing regulations by July 31, 2019.
AVR expands on the landmark National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (popularly known as the “Motor Voter Act.”). The Motor Voter Act eased the voter registration and maintenance process by requiring states to provide citizens with the opportunity to register to vote when applying for a driver’s license or otherwise engaging with a state agency that provides public assistance. Agencies that already participate in the Motor Voter Registration will continue to do so even if they are not designated as AVR agencies.
How It Will Work
Individuals transacting business at AVR agencies will be asked to provide sworn or verified information of their (a) legal name, (b) age, (c) residence, (d) citizenship, and (e) an electronic signature. AVR agencies must inform individuals of voter eligibility requirements and specify that non-citizens are ineligible and must decline to register to vote. The AVR Act requires AVR agencies to inform applicants that, unless they opt-out, their transaction at the agency will operate as a registration and attestation of their eligibility to vote. Eligible residents who do not decline will automatically be registered to vote as of the date of the qualifying agency transaction. The AVR Act does not change the requirement that voters be registered at least 21 days prior to an election.
AVR agencies will electronically transmit the collected personal information and signatures to the Secretary of State, unless an address is designated as confidential pursuant to G.L. c. 9A, § 8, or any collected information is not internally consistent or otherwise reliable. G.L. c. 51, § 42G ½(e), as amended by the AVR Act. The Secretary in turn will transmit the received data to the board of registrars or election commission in the registrant’s home city or town. Id.
Individuals automatically registered by an AVR agency will have a second opportunity to decline registration (or to select a party affiliation) by responding within 21 days to the notification of registration mailed by their local voter registrars. Voters who do not respond within the 21 days will be deemed registered as of the date they completed their eligible transaction with the designated AVR agency. Additionally, to reduce inaccurate registrations, local registrars will use the Electronic Registration Information Center to notify and confirm registrars new registration addresses.
Protections Afforded by the AVR Act
The Secretary of State is directed by the AVR Act to promulgate regulations to protect the confidentiality of addresses and the reliability of citizenship information.
- Address Confidentiality
Victims of domestic violence, sexual assault, or stalking in particular are concerned that their name and address information will not remain confidential when provided to a government agency. Recognizing that public policy is not served if people refrain from registering to vote or, more critically, obtaining necessary driver licenses or health services, out of fear for their safety, states that have implemented AVR have taken great care to assure the public that AVR will not increase the risk that their contact information will be publicly shared.
In Massachusetts, current election regulations prohibit registrars and election commissioners from publishing on the voter rolls, the name and residence of voters who are protected by the Address Confidentiality Program (“ACP”) administered by the Secretary of State, protected by a court order, residents in protective shelters, or for whom a chief of police has submitted an affidavit attesting that the voter is entitled to have certain information withheld from the public under G.L. c. 265, § 24C. Under the ACP, domestic violence victims who have relocated are also provided with a substitute address to use in transactions with the RMV and other state entities. As inserted by the AVR Act, G.L. c. 51, § 65(e) requires the Secretary of State to adopt regulations addressing confidentiality program participants under the ACP who interact with the RMV, MassHealth, and other AVR agencies.
- Citizenship Questions
A common concern regarding AVR and other voter registration modernization is that ineligible residents will be unintentionally registered to vote. Massachusetts, like every other state, allows documented noncitizens to obtain driver’s licenses with proof of lawful residence. California, unlike Massachusetts, allows undocumented aliens to obtain a special driver’s license and implemented AVR in 2018. While California did experience some initial technical difficulties after implementing AVR, state officials reported that “no people in the country illegally — who are eligible to get a special driver’s license in California — were mistakenly registered to vote,” and the Brenner Center for Justice did not report any incidents of non-citizens voting in California.
G.L. c. 51, § 42G ½ (a)(1), as inserted by the AVR Act, allows only state agencies that collect “reliable citizenship information” to participate in the AVR program. Agencies are deemed to collect reliable citizenship information if they “(i) request, in a clear, understandable and consistently stated manner, that customers affirm their citizenship status; and, (ii) collect a signed affirmation of citizenship status or documentary proof of citizenship status such that records of citizens are segregable from non-citizens.” In Massachusetts, citizenship and immigration status is also verified when determining eligibility for Medicaid benefits and state-subsidized healthcare insurance. Voters registered under the AVR will not be liable for a false claim to citizenship unless they affirmatively assert such eligible citizenship after being notified that their transaction with the agency serves as an attestation of eligibility unless they decline to register and that noncitizens are not eligible to vote.
Impact of AVR
With the AVR Act, Massachusetts joins California, Georgia, Oregon, West Virginia, and eleven other states and the District of Columbia to enact AVR. The AVR policy represents a continued progression in Massachusetts towards the “modernization of the registration process through continued expansion of online voter registration and expanded state collaboration in improving the accuracy of voter lists.” According to the Brennan Center, which has published a comprehensive report measuring the impact of AVR across the nation, since first being adopted by Oregon in 2014, “AVR markedly increases the number of voters being registered — increases in the number of registrants ranging from 9 to 94 percent. These registration increases are found in big and small states, as well as states with different partisan makeups.” For example, Oregon registered more than 200,000 citizens in the first six months following implementation, a rate over 16 times greater than registered by the DMV under the previous system. Rhode Island and Connecticut, have implemented variations of AVR, and Rhode Island’s voter registration has increased 47% since its implementation. In California, more than 1.4 million voter registration files were transmitted from the DMV to state election officials in the first four months of implementation. In fact, an estimated 27 million eligible persons would be added to voter rolls across the country if every state adopted automatic voter registration.
President Obama reminded us that we cure the ills in our democracy with more democracy. Automatic voter registration promises to do that by removing outdated and unnecessary barriers to voter engagement. As with all reforms, we must ensure AVR’s implementation adheres to the spirit and intent of the law. But once fully implemented, thousands of our family members, friends, and neighbors in Massachusetts will finally be able to have their voices heard from town halls to the White House
Pratt Wiley is the President & CEO of the Partnership, Inc. He formerly served as the National Director of Voter Expansion for the Democratic National Committee, where he oversaw the Party’s voting rights and voter protection initiatives, from 2013 to 2017.
by David Lyons
In a unanimous decision last September, the Supreme Judicial Court (“SJC”) upheld the Commonwealth’s latest climate change regulations to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from electric generators, rejecting those generators’ arguments that the regulations violate the Massachusetts Global Warming Solutions Act (the “GWSA”). New England Power Generators Ass’n, Inc. v. Dep’t of Envtl. Prot. (“NEPGA”), 480 Mass. 398 (2018). With the Legislature and the Governor continuing to focus on this issue, the SJC likely will be called upon again to decide other climate change cases.
A Legacy of Policy Innovation
Massachusetts is one of a handful of states that have pressed the envelope in adopting climate change policy, from spearheading Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency, 549 U.S. 497 (2007) (compelling EPA to begin the process to regulate carbon dioxide as a pollutant under the federal Clean Air Act) to coordinating the formation of the country’s first multistate emissions trading market, the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (“RGGI”). As the SJC noted, ever since the Legislature adopted the GWSA in 2008, Massachusetts has been “a national, and even international, leader in the efforts to reduce . . . climate change.” NEPGA, 480 Mass. at 399. Among other provisions, the GWSA mandated a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 80% below the 1990 level by 2050. M.G.L. c. 21N, § 3(b).
Industry has strenuously opposed these policies, especially the electric generators who have shouldered the most immediate compliance burdens. Regulating greenhouse gases at the state level both raises the costs for power plants and their customers, they argue, and fails to ameliorate the environmental problem, as emissions simply shift to neighboring, unregulated jurisdictions.
Kain v. Department of Environmental Protection, 474 Mass. 278 (2016), previously discussed in these pages, spurred more DEP action, including the regulations at issue in NEPGA. Kain addressed M.G.L. c. 21N, § 3(d), which requires DEP to develop aggregate limits for different sources of emitters. The SJC decided in Kain that the agency’s implementation of the RGGI program was insufficient to comply with the statutory mandate. Among other things, the Court ordered DEP to promulgate “regulations that address multiple sources or categories of sources of greenhouse gas emissions, impose a limit on emissions . . ., limit the aggregate emissions released from each group of regulated sources . . ., [and] set [declining] emission limits for each year. . . .” Id. at 300.
Kain thus laid the foundation for a series of climate-change policies. Shortly thereafter, Governor Baker issued Executive Order 569, initiating a rulemaking process that culminated in the two key regulations contested in NEPGA. The “Cap Regulation” was the focus of the plaintiffs’ challenge and imposes annual, declining limits for greenhouse gas emissions on in-state electric generators. 310 Code Mass. Regs. § 7.74. The Clean Energy Standard, 310 Code Mass. Regs. § 7.75, requires utilities to procure more of their power from non-emitting sources. Id.
The plaintiffs filed suit challenging the rulemaking on September 11, 2017. Befitting the policy stakes, a single justice of the SJC reserved and reported the case to the full Court before any substantive motions or briefing at the Superior Court. See M.G.L. c. 211, § 4A (empowering the SJC to transfer cases from the lower courts).
The SJC Upholds Sector-by-Sector Emissions Limits
The electric generators mounted a three-pronged attack on the regulations. First, they alleged that DEP and the Department of Energy Resources lacked the authority to issue the Cap Regulation. They argued that the GWSA provision directly regulating electric generators, G.L. c. 21N, § 3(c), forecloses other regulations under § 3(d), which generally authorizes sector-by-sector emission limits. 480 Mass. at 399. Second, they argued that the Cap Regulation will increase greenhouse gas emissions. Id. Finally, they claimed that a sunset clause in the statute barred § 3(d) regulations from being effective beyond 2020. Id.at 399-400. The SJC was unpersuaded.
First, the Court concluded that §§ 3(c) and 3(d) complement, rather than conflict with, each other. The electric sector is just one of several categories of emission sources within the scope of § 3(d). Id. at 404. The Court relied on conventional tools of statutory interpretation and an assessment of the Legislature’s overall policy objectives, noting that although § 3(c) aims specifically at electric generators, nothing in either § 3(c) or § 3(d) precludes electric sector regulations under § 3(d). Id. at 406-07. The SJC also rejected the plaintiffs’ argument that DEP’s interpretation was unreasonable. Because electric generators account for roughly 20% of the state’s greenhouse gas emissions, the SJC reasoned that it would be anomalous to exclude electric generators from the declining sector-by-sector limits under § 3(d). Id. at 405.
Second, the SJC rejected the plaintiffs’ argument that the Cap Regulation is arbitrary and capricious, holding that the generators had not met their burden to show that the regulation lacked “any conceivable grounds upon which [it could] be upheld.” Id. at 410. The plaintiffs argued that if high-carbon, in-state electricity is replaced by high-carbon, out-of-state electricity, consumers will face higher costs with no environmental gains. The SJC characterized that concern as speculative and found “multiple conceivable bases to support the rule” in the administrative record. Id. at 408. Applied together, the SJC concluded that the Cap Regulation and the Clean Energy Standard will encourage the development of clean generation sources in Massachusetts and neighboring states. Id. at 409-10.
Last, the SJC disagreed with the plaintiffs’ interpretation of a provision in the GWSA stating that § 3(d) regulations “shall expire on December 31, 2020.” Rather than invalidating any emission limits effective beyond this date, the SJC concluded that the timing provision only requires DEP to issue new regulations by December 31, 2020, and likened the date to an “implementation deadline, not [a] termination” date. Id. at 411.
Although the state has made significant strides to reduce emissions—cutting them by more than 20% between 1990 and 2016—the formidable economic and technical obstacles that stand in the way of the GWSA-mandated 80% reduction by 2050 mean that NEPGA will not be the last climate change case to reach the courts.
Indeed, with the wave of policymaking launched by the GWSA and reinvigorated by Kain continuing to build, climate change may reach the SJC again sooner rather than later. On August 9, 2018, Governor Baker signed An Act to Advance Clean Energy, 2018 Mass. Acts c. 227. Though less aggressive than a Senate version promoted by environmental advocates, the Act made several important changes, including raising the targets for the state’s Renewable Portfolio Standard (which requires utilities to procure energy from renewable sources). The Act also directs the Department of Energy Resources to implement a Clean Peak Standard to promote clean energy sources to meet peak-period demands, which historically have been met by burning dirtier fuel sources. Governor Baker also signed An Act Promoting Climate Change Adaptation, Environmental and Natural Resource Protection and Investment in Recreational Assets and Opportunity, 2018 Mass. Acts c. 209, which authorizes $2.4 billion in bonds for environmental projects and codifies initiatives begun by E.O. 569, including the statewide Hazard Mitigation and Climate Adaption Plan. Most recently, the state expanded its regional leadership role, joining with nine other states and the District of Columbia to launch a regional strategy, analogous to RGGI, to reduce emissions from transportation. With the reach of climate change regulations expanding rapidly, the SJC surely will address climate change again soon.
David Lyons is an associate at Anderson & Kreiger LLP. He advises public- and private-sector clients in permitting and litigation matters, with a focus on environmental, energy, and municipal law.
by Bethany Stevens
Massachusetts law has long provided two tools to suspend a person’s lawful access to firearms: a firearms licensing authority could suspend a person’s license to carry or possess a firearm if it found the person was unsuitable, or a court could — indeed, is required to — suspend a firearms license and order the surrender of the person’s firearms after finding a substantial likelihood of an immediate danger of abuse of a household or family member pursuant to G.L. c. 209A. Massachusetts has now added a third tool, modeled after “red flag” laws in other states, to allow seizure of the firearms of persons who present a risk to themselves or others. As of August 17, 2018, the District Court and Boston Municipal Court may now issue an “extreme risk protection order” to compel a person to immediately surrender firearms and ammunition on the petition of a household member, family member or licensing authority without the need for a finding of abuse. See G.L. c. 140, §§ 131R-131Z.
What is an Extreme Risk Protection Order?
An extreme risk protection order (sometimes referred to as an “ERPO”) immediately suspends a person’s license to carry or possess a firearm and directs the person to immediately surrender their firearms licenses, guns (including stun guns), and ammunition to the licensing authority in the municipality where the person resides. An ERPO may issue only upon a finding that the person “poses a risk of bodily injury to self or others by being in possession of a [firearms license] or having in his control, ownership or possession [guns or ammunition].” G.L. c. 140, § 131T(a). While the order is in effect, the respondent is disqualified from obtaining a firearms license and is prohibited from possessing a firearms license, gun or ammunition. A violation of the order is a misdemeanor criminal offense.
Who Can Seek an Order?
The new law allows a household or family member, defined as those phrases are used in G.L. c. 209A, to file a petition with the court upon “belie[f] that a person holding a license to carry firearms or a firearm identification card may pose a risk of causing bodily injury to self or others.” G.L. c. 140, § 131R. A petition may also be filed by the licensing authority where the respondent resides (defined as “the chief of police or the board or officer having control of the police in a city or town, or persons authorized by them,” G.L. c. 140, § 121). In some instances, the licensing authority where the respondent resides will not be the authority that actually issued the respondent’s firearms license(s) because a person could be licensed by the police department of the municipality in which the person works or because a person might move to a different municipality after licensing. G.L. c. 140, §§ 129B(1), 129B(11), and 131(d).
Individuals who are not family or household members may not petition a court for an ERPO, even though in appropriate instances they may seek a harassment protection order under G.L. c. 258E. Chapter 258E does not authorize a harassment prevention order to include an order to surrender firearms. J.C. v. J.H., 92 Mass. App. Ct. 224, 230 (2017). As a result, if an individual who is not a member of a license-holder’s family or household believes that a license-holder poses a risk to themselves or others, the individual should seek appropriate relief by reporting the information to an eligible ERPO petitioner.
Procedure to Issue an Order
The new law bears many procedural similarities to G.L. c. 209A. A petitioner who seeks an ERPO must file a petition signed under the pains and penalties of perjury. If on review the judge “finds reasonable cause to conclude that the respondent poses a risk of bodily injury to self or others” by possessing a firearms license, guns or ammunition, the judge may issue an emergency or temporary extreme risk protection order without first giving notice to the respondent. G.L. c. 140, § 131T(a). An emergency order issued during court hours is valid for only 10 days. Like an emergency order under c. 209A, an emergency ERPO issued after court hours by an on-call judge is valid only until the end of the next court day. If a petitioner seeks to have such an “after hours” emergency order extended beyond the next court day, the petitioner must appear during court hours for a hearing at the appropriate court with jurisdiction over the city or town where the respondent lives.
Because an ERPO suspends a person’s lawful access to guns and ammunition, an ERPO will not issue when the person has no license to suspend. Rather than issuing an ERPO, the court will provide the information to police to take whatever action is warranted when they learn information related to the illegal possession of firearms. If in these circumstances the petitioner is a household or family member concerned about their own safety, they should consider seeking a c. 209A order.
For an ERPO to be extended up to one year, the court must hold a hearing within ten days of the filing of the petition with notice to the respondent at least seven days prior to the hearing. The respondent can waive this notice period. If the respondent files an affidavit stating that guns are required in the performance of the respondent’s employment, the hearing must be held within two days of the petition being filed. At the hearing, the petitioner must establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the respondent poses a risk of bodily injury to self or others by possessing guns or ammunition. If the judge so finds, the judge must issue an order for up to one year. Either party may move to modify, suspend or terminate an active order. Appeals of ERPO proceedings may be taken to the Appeals Court just as c. 209A orders may be appealed.
Effect of an Order
Whenever a court issues an ERPO, the licensing authority and the criminal justice information service database (CJIS) must be notified. This triggers suspension of any Massachusetts firearms license and disqualifies the respondent from obtaining a new firearms license in Massachusetts. This is the same process that occurs when a c. 209A order issues: CJIS and licensing authorities are notified of c. 209A orders as such orders generally require immediate suspension of a firearms license and surrender of guns and ammunition. G.L. c. 209A, §§ 3B and 3C.
The new statute allowing courts to issue extreme risk protection orders does not replace a licensing authority’s ability to suspend a firearms license. Therefore, under G.L. c. 140, § 129B (firearm identification cards) or § 131 (licenses to carry), the chief of police who issued the license or their designee may still suspend a person’s license and require surrender of guns and ammunition upon finding the licensee “unsuitable.” This determination by the licensing authority results in immediate suspension of the firearms license without the need for a court ruling.
Restoration of Firearms License
While issuing an extreme risk protection order is a process separate from the licensing authority’s determination of suitability, the two processes converge upon an ERPO’s expiration or termination. After an ERPO is issued, a firearms license, guns, and ammunition may be returned to the respondent only after the licensing authority where the respondent resides determines that the respondent is suitable. A determination of unsuitability must be based either on reliable information that the person “has exhibited or engaged in behavior to suggest the [person] could potentially create a risk to public safety” or on “existing factors that suggest that the [person] could potentially create a risk to public safety.” G.L. c. 140, § 129B(1½)(d) . If denied reinstatement, a respondent presumably could seek judicial review under existing license appeal procedures, although the new statute does not explicitly provide for such judicial review.
Reports on the New Law’s Use
By December 31, 2018, we will learn more about the utility of this new law. The court must provide an annual statistical report on its use, including the number of petitions filed, petitions granted, and petitions that led to surrender of guns, as well as demographic information about respondents and petitioners. In the meantime, information about extreme risk protection orders and the forms a petitioner is required to file can be found on the court’s website.
Bethany Stevens is the Director of Legal Policy and Deputy General Counsel to the Administrative Office of the District Court, and is a member of the BBA’s Criminal Law Section Steering Committee. Previously, she served as the Deputy Chief of the Middlesex District Attorney’s Appeals Bureau where she litigated closed courtroom claims at the trial level as well as at the Appeals Court and Supreme Judicial Court.
Massachusetts High Court Rules Judges Can Require Sobriety as Part of Probation in Commonwealth v. EldredPosted: November 6, 2018
by Martha Coakley and Rachel Hutchinson
On July 16, 2018, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court unanimously ruled in Commonwealth v. Eldred, 480 Mass. 90 (2018) that judges can require individuals with substance use disorders to remain drug-free as a condition of probation. Although the Court stressed that judges should consider the challenges of addiction, the Court nevertheless found that judges must also “have the authority to detain a defendant” who has violated probation by using drugs. Id. at 99. It appears that the SJC is the first state supreme court to reach and decide this issue.
I. The Addiction Debate
Remaining drug-free is an almost universal requirement of probation. Many courts, including specialty courts such as drug courts that take a public health approach to substance abuse, require offenders to stay clean, and respond to relapses with sanctions ranging from warnings to jail time. But as the opioid crisis has swept the nation, many have begun to question the central role that courts play in battles with substance abuse.
Eldred cut to the heart of this growing debate. The defendant, Julie Eldred, argued that requiring her to remain drug-free as a condition of probation violated her constitutional rights. According to Eldred, addiction is a chronic brain disease that interferes with one’s ability to abstain from drugs. Eldred argued that punishing addicts like herself for a relapse punishes them for something over which they have no control and negates willfulness. The prosecution disagreed, arguing that addiction is a condition that ranges in intensity and is responsive to penalties and rewards. According to the prosecution, sanctions like jail time are an important tool that judges can use to encourage recovery and promote public safety.
Many of the Eldred amici weighed in on the science of addiction, focusing on the degree of control addicted individuals have over their drug use. For instance, the Massachusetts Medical Society argued that relapse was a symptom of a disease that must be treated, not punished. Other amici, however, pointed out that the scientific community has not yet reached consensus about whether addiction leaves someone powerless over their drug use. The National Association of Drug Court Professionals noted that supervision and drug testing combined with graduated sanctions helps keep individuals in recovery, and cautioned the SJC against allowing “any particular theory of addiction to influence its decision.”
II. The Eldred Decision
Eldred arose out of the 10-day incarceration of Julie Eldred after she failed a court-ordered drug test. Eldred, who had suffered from substance use disorder since age 15, had originally been convicted of larceny for stealing jewelry to support her addiction. Eldred’s probation required her to enroll in outpatient treatment, submit to random drug screenings, and remain drug-free. Although Eldred originally complied with her probation, enrolling in a program and starting on a course of Suboxone, she relapsed shortly thereafter and tested positive for fentanyl, a powerful opioid. Because no inpatient drug treatment facilities had open spots, the judge overseeing Eldred’s detention hearing ordered her held in custody until one became available 10 days later. Eldred, 480 Mass. at 93.
At the full hearing on her probation violation, Eldred argued that this 10-day detention was unlawful because her substance use disorder “rendered her incapable of remaining drug free.” Id. at 92. The judge disagreed, finding that Eldred had violated her probation, but nevertheless granted Eldred’s motion to report the question regarding the lawfulness of the drug-free condition to the SJC. The SJC found that the question was improperly reported, but agreed to consider it nonetheless because it presented “issues of significant magnitude.” Id. at 94.
Although the parties and amici focused their arguments on the addiction debate, the SJC declined to weigh in on the science. Instead, the Eldred decision focused on a judge’s role in setting probation conditions. Based on longstanding precedent, the SJC decided that judges may continue to require individuals to remain drug-free while on probation, and may detain individuals who violate that condition until their probation hearing.
The SJC framed the reported question in three parts. First, when someone who is addicted to drugs commits a crime, may a judge require her to remain drug-free as a condition of probation? Second, if an individual violates the drug-free condition, can she be subject to probation revocation proceedings? Third, may she be held in custody while awaiting admission to an inpatient treatment facility? Id. at 94.
The SJC answered all three questions in the affirmative. While the Court noted that judges who deal with those who suffer from substance use disorder should act with “flexibility, sensitivity, and compassion,” the Court ruled that judges “must have the authority to detain a defendant facing a probation violation based on illicit drug use.” Id. at 95, 99. The Court disagreed with Eldred that the judge’s decision to detain her constituted a punishment for her relapse. Rather, the Court likened it to a bail decision, since no final determination on whether Eldred had violated her probation had been made. The Court noted that the judge simply sought to detain Eldred until an inpatient facility became available. It also held that “although the appellate record before the court was inadequate to determine whether SUD affects the brain in such a way that certain individuals cannot control their drug use,” the trial court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that there was a wilful violation of the defendant’s probation. Id. at 104.
Finally, although the SJC agreed with Eldred that substance use disorder itself cannot be criminalized, it pointed out that “relapse is dangerous,” both for addicted individuals and the community in which they live. Id. at 99. The Court noted that judges, who are on the front lines of the opioid epidemic, “face unresolved and constantly changing societal issues with little notice and, in many situations, without the benefit of precedential guidance.” Id. The Court characterized these decisions as “especially unpalatable” when an offender is addicted to drugs. Id. While the Court, pointing to its own Standards on Substance Abuse, acknowledged that relapse is an accepted part of recovery, the Court stressed that relapse was dangerous nonetheless, and ruled that judges must continue to have the authority to detain defendants after a relapse that violates their probationary terms.
III. Eldred’s Implications
Although Eldred maintained the status quo for judges dealing with addicted offenders, it is unlikely to be the final word on the subject. As the opioid epidemic grows, the way we view addition is changing. Even the Attorney General’s Office acknowledged in its briefing that “exclusively punitive responses to addiction … do not make us safer.” While the criminal justice system may be on the front lines of the crisis for now, that role may change as other jurisdictions, legislatures, agencies, and disciplines grapple with the same questions faced in Eldred.
Martha Coakley, the first female Attorney General of Massachusetts, served from 2007-2015. Her prior experience includes District Attorney of Middlesex County; Special Attorney, Boston Organized Crime Strike Force; and Resident Fellow, Harvard Institute of Politics, John F. Kennedy School of Government. Martha has been a national leader in consumer protection, and civil rights, among other areas. As an active member and then President of the Women’s Bar Association, Martha supported and participated in the §12S petition panel for young women needing counsel in Court. NAAG recognized her outstanding accomplishments in 2014 when she received the Kelley-Wyman Award, given annual to the AG who has done the most to achieve NAAG objectives, Martha graduated from Williams College and the Boston University School of Law. She is a Partner in Foley Hoag’s Administrative Department where she focuses on government and internal investigations, litigation, data privacy and security, and healthcare.
Rachel Hutchinson is an associate in the firm’s Administrative Law and Litigation departments, where she represents individual and corporate clients in a wide range of regulatory matters and civil disputes. Her practice focuses on regulatory compliance, government investigations, and white collar crime. Rachel also maintains a pro bono practice focused on civil rights and LGBT issues.
by Joseph N. Schneiderman
On August 23, 2016, the Supreme Judicial Court held that a student who was unlawfully suspended under the felony suspension statute, G.L. c.71, §37H1/2, did not need to seek review of her suspension to pursue the statutory tort of unlawful exclusion from public school, G.L. c.76, §16. Goodwin v. Lee Public Schools, 475 Mass. 280 (2016). This victory for students’ rights offers an opportunity for the Legislature to take action to further stem the flow of children in the school to prison pipeline.
The Case and Holding
Katelynn Goodwin was a senior at Lee Middle and High School in the Berkshires. In late December 2011, the principal suspended Ms. Goodwin under the felony suspension statute because the Lee Police suspected her involvement in a weapons theft. There was one obvious problem, however: a felony complaint never issued against Ms. Goodwin. Indeed, the superintendent admitted that Ms. Goodwin “perhaps not been charged yet.” A misdemeanor complaint ultimately issued against her in April 2012 for receiving stolen property. The school offered to lift the suspension but refused to allow Ms. Goodwin to graduate with her class. Ms. Goodwin graduated alone through an online program in 2013.
In December 2014, Ms. Goodwin sued for damages. A judge of the Superior Court dismissed Ms. Goodwin’s complaint on the grounds that she failed to appeal her suspension within five days pursuant to the felony suspension statute’s administrative process. Ms. Goodwin timely appealed and the SJC allowed her application for direct appellate review.
A unanimous Court reinstated Ms. Goodwin’s complaint and agreed that her right to tort recovery for unlawful exclusion constitutes a separate and distinct remedy from seeking reinstatement to school. The Court recalled that the statutory tort of unlawful exclusion has existed since 1845, although there have been relatively few recent cases analyzing the claims. The felony suspension statute, enacted in 1994, authorizes a principal to suspend when: (1) a student is charged with or convicted of a felony; and (2) the student’s continued presence would have a substantial detrimental effect on the general welfare of the school. A student could appeal the suspension to the superintendent-but the school committee does not review suspensions under the felony suspension statute. 475 Mass. at 284-286, compare G.L. c. 76, §17.
The Court reasoned that the felony suspension statute was only “triggered ‘[u]pon the issuance of a criminal complaint charging a student with a felony.’” Goodwin, 475 Mass. at 287 (quoting §37H1/2). Because the principal suspended Ms. Goodwin without any felony complaint issuing against her, the suspension violated Section 37H1/2 and Ms. Goodwin did not need to pursue any administrative review before seeking damages. The Court also rejected the notion that the felony suspension statute precluded any recovery in tort. Instead, the statute simply provides an “additional, immediate, review of a decision to exclude them from school, with the goal of readmission.” Id. at 288. Ms. Goodwin thus deserved her day in court.
Goodwin marks an overdue moment of accountability for schools in the crisis of juvenile delinquency based school suspensions. Some felony charges decidedly warrant suspension to preserve school safety. See Doe v. Superintendent of Schools of Stoughton, 437 Mass. 1 (2002) (principal properly suspended a high school freshman charged with the rape of a primary school student on the same campus). There are many “felony” crimes, however, that should never warrant a suspension, absent aggravating circumstances.
Specifically, a felony constitutes “any offense punishable by imprisonment in the State Prison,” G.L. c. 274, §1. Therefore, a student who has a fake driver’s license faces suspension if the principal believes that having a fake license poses substantial detrimental effect to the general welfare of the school. G.L. c. 90, §24B (punishable by five years in state prison.) The sheer breadth of offenses that may trigger suspension has grave potential to thwart a child’s education and the command that allegedly delinquent children “shall be treated not as criminals but as children needing aid, encouragement of guidance.” G.L. c. 119, §53.
Between 1997 and 2011, principals suspended an average of more than 100 students per year under the felony suspension statute. Melanie Riccobene Jarboe, “Expelled to Nowhere”: School Exclusion Laws in Massachusetts, 31 B.C. Third World L.J. 343, 376 (2011). Courts tended not to review suspensions critically, despite “ample indication that principals [suspended] indiscriminately and [did not] carefully consider each case”, as the Commissioner of Education urged. Id. at 352, 360. Those suspensions inevitably flushed students into the school to prison pipeline. Id. at 349–51, 357, 365–69.
The review process is messy at best. A student or parent must request review in writing within five days.. Goodwin, 475 Mass. at 282, n.4. There is also no guidepost to judicial review, and certiorari becomes the only (default) option, which does not account for the best rehabilitative interests of a child. Doe, 437 Mass. at 5. An unlawful suspension may deprive a student of their future. See Commonwealth v. Mogelinski, 466 Mass. 627, 647-648 (2013), S.C., 473 Mass. 164 (2015). (“futurelessness” may overcome a child who endures a prolonged delinquency case.)
Finally, there is no freestanding right to counsel in suspension proceedings. And, unfortunately, “many parents often do not have the mindset, time, or means to pursue redress against the educational system…and the parents who do have the resources are often ostracized, frustrated, and unsuccessful.” Expelled to Nowhere, 31 B.C. Third World L.J. at 352.
Where Do We Go After Goodwin?
The Legislature has three concrete ways to build on Goodwin to spur continued accountability. First, the Legislature should limit suspensions only to when a student stands indicted as a youthful offender for a felony offense that involves infliction or risk of serious bodily harm. G.L. c.119, §54.
Second, as the Court implicitly suggested, the Legislature should create flexibility in the administrative review process and expressly establish procedures for judicial review to the Juvenile Court–which has a statutory mandate to further the best rehabilitative interests of children. G.L. c.119, §§1, 53.
Finally, the Legislature should create an independent right to appointed counsel in suspension hearings-with the right to commence the process for tort recovery for unlawful exclusion pursuant to the Massachusetts Tort Claims Act. These changes would ensure due process for students and further the goal of ending unlawful exclusions from education.
Joe Schneiderman has an appellate practice in Massachusetts and Connecticut with a particular affinity for and focus on juvenile delinquency and municipal law. Joe gratefully dedicates this article to: his mother Ro (who passed away three weeks after he filed Ms. Goodwin’s brief), as well as his dear friend, mentor, and teacher, Robert Kyff.
Distinguishing Employees’ “General Skill or Knowledge” From Protectable Trade Secrets Under Massachusetts LawPosted: August 15, 2018
by Gregory S. Bombard and Adam M. Santeusanio
Trade secret claims often arise when a highly skilled employee leaves to work for a competitor. Under Massachusetts trade secret law, this fact pattern creates a tension between the employer’s interest in protecting its trade secrets and the employee’s competing interest in using his or her own general experience and abilities to foster a successful career. Though Massachusetts courts have long recognized this tension, the line between what constitutes a protectable trade secret as compared to an employee’s “general skill or knowledge” is not explicitly defined in Massachusetts case law. The inquiry is highly fact-based and does not easily lend itself to bright lines. This article examines the leading cases addressing the distinction between trade secrets and general skill or knowledge, and identifies the four factors courts most commonly use to draw the line.
I. The Legal Framework
Massachusetts law protects trade secret information, which is defined by statute as “a formula, pattern, compilation, program, device, method, technique, process, business strategy, customer list, invention, or scientific, technical, financial or customer data that (i) at the time of the alleged misappropriation, provided economic advantage, actual or potential, from not being generally known to, and not being readily ascertainable by proper means by, others who might obtain economic advantage from its acquisition, disclosure or use; and (ii) at the time of the alleged misappropriation was the subject of efforts that were reasonable under the circumstances . . . to protect against it being acquired, disclosed or used.”[i]
Although a company must safeguard the secrecy of purported trade secrets in order to seek legal protection for them, the company must, of course, disclose such secrets to at least some of its employees for use in the company’s business. That disclosure creates a legally-implied duty by the employee to maintain the confidentiality of the trade secrets. In addition, employees are often subject to contractual nondisclosure covenants, which survive the termination of employment.
However, Massachusetts courts recognize an important limitation on trade secret protection: a departing employee may continue to use his “general skill or knowledge acquired during the course of the employment” following his departure.[iii] This doctrine, which has been the law in Massachusetts since at least 1912,[iv] provides that an employer may not claim trade secret protection over an employee’s general skill or knowledge regardless of whether the employee developed it prior to or during his employment. By limiting the types of information that an employer can protect as trade secrets, the general skill or knowledge rule “effectuates the public interest in labor mobility, promotes the employee’s freedom to practice a profession, and [promotes] freedom of competition.”[v] The rule applies both when a former employer sues a former employee for misappropriation of the former employer’s trade secrets,[vi] and when an employer seeks to enforce post-employment restrictive covenants, like noncompetition agreements.[vii]
The facts of Intertek Testing Servs. NA, Inc. v. Curtis-Strauss LLC provides an example of how the doctrine plays out in practice. Intertek was a product inspection, testing and certification company that sued several of its former salespeople for having misappropriated “secret” information about “the quality of the relationship that certain customers had with Intertek,” including whether those relationships were “good,” “bad,” or “in-between.” Judge Gants, then sitting in the Business Litigation Session, granted summary judgment in favor of the salespeople, ruling that the strength of an employer’s relationship with a particular customer “certainly falls into the category of general knowledge acquired during the course of employment.” Speaking to the rule’s policy goal of promoting labor mobility, Judge Gants observed that “if this general information were deemed secret or confidential, then no salesman could ever work for a competitor, because every salesman inevitably knows this information and could not help but use it in some fashion.”[viii]
II. Distinguishing Trade Secrets from General Skill or Knowledge
Although the general skill or knowledge doctrine is widely cited in Massachusetts case law, no court has articulated a test for distinguishing between protectable trade secrets and nonprotectable general skill or knowledge. In the cases applying the doctrine, however, the courts most commonly consider the following four factors: (1) whether an employee had significant experience or expertise prior to starting their employment; (2) whether an employee assisted in the development of the alleged trade secret; (3) whether the alleged trade secrets were actually put to use or were merely inchoate “concepts” or “goals”; and (4) whether the alleged misappropriation involved the removal of documents or merely the contents of the employee’s memory. None of the four factors standing alone is dispositive.
A. The Employee’s Prior Experience or Expertise
Massachusetts courts are more likely to find that an alleged secret falls within an employee’s general skill and knowledge if the employee had significant experience, expertise, or education in the field before starting his employment. This factor is based on the policy that “the loss to the individual and the economic loss to society are both greatest when a highly trained and specialized person is prevented from employing his special abilities.”[ix]
For example, in Dynamics Research Corp v. Analytic Sciences Corp., an employer claimed its former employee misappropriated a system for managing data and providing feedback during the development of weapons systems for government contracts. Prior to his employment, the employee had been decorated by the Air Force for his management ability and had worked as a manager of an MIT laboratory. In fact, the employer hired him “in part because he [already] understood its management system concept.” The Appeals Court ruled that the alleged secret fell within the employee’s general skill and knowledge, observing he had come to the job “with knowledge and skill in the plaintiff’s area of operation” and “much of the [alleged trade secret] was known to the defendant prior to his employment.”[x] Conversely, in Junker v. Plummer, the employer’s claimed secret was a novel machine for “combining shoe cloth,” and the former employees “had never seen a combining machine” before their employment.[xi] There, the SJC ruled that the machine’s functionality was not part of the employees’ general skill or knowledge and was instead a protectable trade secret of their former employer.
B. The Employee’s Personal Participation in Developing the Secret
Massachusetts courts are more likely to find that an alleged secret falls within an employee’s general skill and knowledge if the employee directly participated in developing the alleged secret. The rationale behind this factor is that if the employee personally contributed towards the alleged secret’s creation or development, then the alleged secret may consist, at least in part, of the skill, knowledge, and experience that the employee brought to bear on the project.
Thus, in Chomerics, Inc. v. Ehrreich, the employee had been “personally actively involved in all of the inventions and discoveries made” by the employer in developing the alleged secret.[xii] Indeed, the employer’s “effort in this field was pioneered largely through [the defendant employee’s] inventions and research,” and the research into conductive plastics was “peculiarly his . . . almost private domain.” The Appeals Court ruled that the information fell within the employee’s general skill or knowledge as a scientist, despite the fact that the employer took reasonable measures to safeguard the information as a trade secret, including requiring the defendant to keep his laboratory notebooks locked up. Similarly, in New Method Die & Cut-Out Co. v. Milton Bradley Co., the employee “took part to a substantial extent in developing the [allegedly secret] process” for manufacturing cardboard toys, bringing to bear “his faculties, skill and experience.”[xiii] The SJC held that the process for manufacturing cardboard toys did not constitute a protectable trade secret, but rather was “the product of [the employee’s] knowledge,” which he developed in the course of his work for his former employer.
C. The Employer’s Unfinished Concepts and Goals
Massachusetts courts are more likely to find that information is within an employee’s general skill or knowledge where the alleged secret is merely an unfinished “concept” or “goal,” as opposed to information that has been reduced to practice in the form of a functioning devise, machine, or system. For example, in Chomerics, Inc. v. Ehrreich, the employer sought to develop electrically conductive plastics using “metal particles embedded in a plastic matrix.”[xiv] During his employment, the employee worked on a project to develop an electrically conductive gasket that contained less than 10 percent silver particles. The employee eventually quit and began working for a competitor, which soon thereafter patented an electrically conductive gasket that used less than 10 percent silver. The Appeals Court ruled that the use of a certain amount of silver represented only a “concept,” and that “when [the defendant] left [the plaintiff’s employ] he took with him nothing but possibilities and goals which had hitherto proved impossible to bring to fruition.” The Appeals Court ruled those “possibilities and goals” were part of the employee’s general skill or knowledge, not a protectable trade secret of the former employer.
By comparison, in Junker, the machine for combining shoe cloth was fully operational, in use in the employer’s manufacturing facility in “actual and substantial production.”[xv] Several of the plaintiff’s employees quit, started working for a competitor, and duplicated the machine, up to which point “there was none other faintly resembling it in use anywhere.” The SJC ruled that the machine was a protectable trade secret belonging to the employer.
D. Employees’ Memory and Nondocumentary Information
Massachusetts courts are more likely to find that an alleged trade secret falls within an employee’s general skill and knowledge if the employee allegedly used information from his memory, without taking away documents or electronically stored information. The SJC has, in several cases, “considered it significant that the former employee did or did not take actual lists or papers belonging to his former employer.”[xvi] For example, in American Window Cleaning Co. of Springfield v. Cohen, the plaintiff alleged that its former employees had misappropriated secret information regarding its customers. The SJC ruled the former employees had not breached their duty of confidentiality to their former employer because “[r]emembered information” regarding certain of the employer’s customers was “not confidential” and “a discharged employee, without the use of a list belonging to his former employer, may solicit the latter’s customers.”[xvii]
Similarly, in New Method Die & Cut-Out Co., the SJC ruled that an allegedly secret method for manufacturing cardboard toys was within the defendant employee’s general skill or knowledge, noting that “the defendant . . . when he left the employment of the plaintiff . . . took no documentary manufacturing data, cost figures, or customers’ lists and no drawing which were a part of the plaintiff’s files or were final drawings which had been used by the [plaintiff] for the manufacture of toys.”[xviii]
By contrast, in Pacific Packaging Products v. Barenboim, the plaintiff employer alleged that five of its former employees removed, among other things, sales history reports, cost books, invoices, and spreadsheets containing the employer’s information about particular customer accounts, all in order to form a competing company using the plaintiff’s customer base. In granting the plaintiff’s request for a preliminary injunction against the defendants’ use of the information, Judge Billings ruled “[m]y focus herein is almost exclusively on documentary information” alleged to have been misappropriated because “while it is theoretically possible to make the showing that a former employee used his memory to compete unfairly with the former employer, it is not―particularly where business, not technical, information is concerned―an easy task.”[xix]
Distinguishing trade secrets from general skill and knowledge is not a precise science and requires a fact-specific analysis. While Massachusetts courts have not articulated a specific set of rules to apply in making the distinction, the four factors discussed above provide an outline of the key considerations Massachusetts courts have used to decide whether certain information was within a departing employee’s general skill or knowledge.
[i] Massachusetts adopted a version of the Uniform Trade Secrets Act (“UTSA”), effective October 1, 2018. See Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 93, §§ 42-42G. Other UTSA jurisdictions distinguish trade secrets from general skill or knowledge. See, e.g., American Red Cross v. Palm Beach Blood Bank, Inc., 143 F.3d 1407, 1410 (11th Cir. 1998) (applying Florida law).
[ii] Jet Spray Cooler, Inc. v. Crampton, 361 Mass. 835, 840 (1972) (citing Restatement of Torts § 757, cmt. b.).
[v] CVD, Inc. v. Raytheon Co., 769 F.2d 842, 852 (1st Cir. 1985) (applying Mass. law).
[vii] See, e.g., EMC Corp. v. Loafman, No. 2012-3115-F, 2012 WL 3620374 (Mass. Super. Ct. 2012) (Wilkins, J.) (“Nor does general knowledge acquired on the job justify a non-compete.”) (citing Dynamics Research Corp. v. Analytic Sciences Corp., 9 Mass. App. Ct. 254, 267 (1980)).
[viii] Intertek Testing Servs. NA, Inc. v. Curtis-Strauss LLC, No. 98903F, 2000 WL 1473126, at *8 (Mass. Super. Ct. Aug. 8, 2000) (Gants, J.).
[ix] Dynamics Research Corp., 9 Mass. App. Ct. at 268 (quoting Harlan M. Blake, Employee Agreements Not to Compete, 73 Harv. L. Rev. 625, 684-85 (1960)); see also Harvard Apparatus, Inc. v. Cowen, 130 F. Supp. 2d 161, 175 n.31 (D. Mass. 2001) (applying Mass. law) (“The issue of whether the information lies within the employee’s general skill or knowledge depends, in part, upon the amount of knowledge and skill the employee had in the relevant area at the start of his employment.”).
[x] Dynamics Research Corp., 9 Mass. App. Ct. at 268; see also New Method Die & Cut-Out Co. v. Milton Bradley Co., 289 Mass. 277, 281-82 (1935) (finding no protectable secret where “much of the [allegedly secret] process was familiar to [the employee] from his [prior] experience”).
[xiii] New Method Die & Cut-Out Co., 289 Mass. at 282.
[xvi] Jet Spray Cooler, Inc. v. Crampton, 361 Mass. 835, 840 (1972) (citing cases). Like the other factors, however, this factor is not dispositive. The SJC ruled in Jet Spray Cooler that “the fact that no list or paper was taken does not prevent the former employee from being enjoined if the information which he gained through his employment and retained in his memory is confidential in nature.” Id.
[xviii] New Method Die & Cut-Out Co., 289 Mass. at 280.
[xix] Pac. Packaging Prod., Inc. v. Barenboim, No. MICV2009-04320, 2010 WL 11068538, at *1 (Mass. Super. Ct. Apr. 20, 2010) (Billings, J.). To avoid an injunction on that basis, the defendants represented to the court they had completely divested themselves of the paper and electronic versions of the plaintiff’s information. The court later found that representation to be a fraud on the court because the defendants had not in fact turned over the information; the court entered a default on the defendants’ counterclaims and awarded fees and costs in excess of $1 million to the plaintiff.
Gregory S. Bombard, a trial lawyer at Duane Morris, focuses his practice on trade secret litigation, business torts, and other complex commercial disputes. He represents pharmaceutical, manufacturing and technology companies in state and federal courts and arbitration proceedings throughout the United States.
Adam M. Santeusanio is a trial lawyer at Duane Morris. His practice focuses on intellectual property and commercial litigation.
by Tara J. Myslinski and Stephanie R. Parker
Filing a new complaint? If your client is part of a for-profit corporate entity and the dispute concerns that entity, there is a good chance that you are wondering whether some or all of your client’s potential claims are derivative or direct claims. There are plenty of ways to get tripped up in this context; it is wise to think early about all of the possible pitfalls in such a case and understand the road ahead.
In this article we discuss the steps an attorney facing this issue must take, including understanding the nature of your client’s entity at the outset of a case, determining whether your client has direct or derivative claims, and following the unique procedural and substantive rules applicable to derivative claims.
Understand the Nature of Your Client’s Entity and its Place of Formation.
The law of the state of the entity’s incorporation or registration will dictate substantive issues of law for claims concerning that entity. Procedural rules for the forum will govern procedural issues.
Issues of substantive law include whether claims are derivative or direct and whether a plaintiff has standing to pursue derivative claims against the entity. See Cannonball Fund, Ltd. v. Dutchess Capital Mgmt., LLC, 84 Mass. App. Ct. 75, 93 (2013) (quoting Harrison v. NetCentric Corp., 433 Mass. 465, 471 (2001)). The differences among the states on derivative suits can be substantial; for example, whereas under Massachusetts law a shareholder is required to make demand on directors in every case alleging derivative claims on behalf of a corporation, see G.L. c. 156D, § 7.42, a suit on behalf of a Delaware corporation may still allege futility of such demand. See Johnston v. Box, 453 Mass. 569, 578 & n. 15 (2009); Del. Ct. Ch. R. 23.1; see also 6 Del. C. §§ 18-1001 & 18-1002 (allowing any LLC member to bring derivative action).
In addition to ascertaining the state of your entity’s formation, study the entity’s governing documents for specific provisions that may apply to derivative suits. See, e.g., G.L. c. 156C, § 56.
Determine Whether Your Client has Direct or Derivative Claims, or Both.
In your complaint, you must specify whether each claim is brought directly by your client as an individual or derivatively by your client on behalf of the entity. This distinction is important because, as discussed below, you must comply with special procedural requirements for any derivative claims you assert.
In general, a derivative claim asserts a wrong done to the corporation, as opposed to any particular shareholder. As such, a derivative claim belongs to the corporation and any damages recovered on a derivative claim will go to the corporation. Examples of derivative claims include:
Wasting, mismanaging or misappropriating corporate assets, resulting in a general diminution of the value of corporate stock, assets, or cash on hand; see, e.g., Rubin v. Murray, 79 Mass. App. Ct. 64, 80 (2011);
- Engaging in acts of self-dealing and/or diverting corporate opportunities; see, e.g., Williams v. Charles, 84 Mass. App. Ct. 328, 338 (2013);
- Breach of a contractual obligation owed to the company, including breach of a non-competition provision; see, e.g., Pagounis v. Pendleton, 52 Mass. App. Ct. 270, 275 (2001); and
- Breach of a fiduciary or other duty owed by the defendant to the corporation. See, e.g., International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local No. 129 Benefit Fund v. Tucci, 476 Mass. 553, 558 (2017).
A direct claim, in contrast, alleges breach of a duty owed to the plaintiff as a shareholder, investor, or creditor of a corporation and seeks to remedy some harm that is distinct from that suffered by shareholders generally. IBEW, 476 Mass. at 558. As such, damages recovered on a direct claim will go directly to the plaintiff. Examples of direct claims include:
- Misrepresentation or fraud perpetrated on an individual investor in connection with his or her investment; see, e.g., Amorim Holding Financeria, S.G.P.S., S.A. v. C.P. Baker & Co., 53 F. Supp. 3d 279, 306-07 (D. Mass. 2014);
- Failure to make payments owed directly to plaintiff, such as profit distributions; see, e.g., Reeve v. Folly Hill Limited Partnership, 36 Mass. App. Ct. 90, 97 (1994);
- Dilution of one shareholder’s share value or equity while increasing the equity held by other shareholders; see, e.g., Donahue v. Rodd Electrotype Co., 367 Mass. 578, 600 n.25 (1975); and
- Breach of a fiduciary duty owed to a shareholder/member or freeze out of a shareholder/member. See id. at 579 n. 4.
In certain contexts, particularly cases involving a close corporation, the line separating direct and derivative claims can be blurred. In those contexts, good pleading practice may require alleging certain claims both individually and derivatively.
Follow the Procedural Prerequisites and Substantive Rules that Apply Uniquely to Derivative Suits.
1. As a Threshold Matter, Ensure Your Plaintiff has Standing.
Massachusetts law on a plaintiff’s standing to bring a derivative claim varies somewhat depending on the type of entity at issue. See G.L c. 156C, §§ 56-57 (LLCs); G.L c. 156D, §§ 7.40-7.47 (corporations); G.L. c. 109, §§ 56-59 (limited partnerships).
With respect to any entity in Massachusetts, however, to have standing to bring a derivative claim, a plaintiff must have been a shareholder (or member or partner) at the time of the alleged misconduct and must continue to be a shareholder throughout the entirety of the derivative litigation. G.L. c. 156D, § 7.41; see Billings v. GTFM, LLC, 449 Mass. 281, 289-96 (2007) (involuntary loss of ownership interest during pendency of litigation deprived plaintiff of standing to press derivative claims); see also Kolancian v. Snowden, 532 F. Supp. 2d 260, 262-263 (D. Mass. 2008) (“a narrow exception to this rule arises where the [event causing the loss of the plaintiff’s ownership interest] itself is the subject of a claim of fraud. . . [t]o establish that a merger was fraudulent, a plaintiff must plead with particularity that it was undertaken ‘merely to eliminate derivative claims’”) (quotation omitted). If your client is concerned that, during the pendency of the case, the defendant may eliminate your client’s interest, preliminary injunctive relief to halt that transaction may be necessary. See IBEW, 476 Mass. at 564 n.15.
If your client controls the entity by owning a majority of its shares or serving as its manager or president, your client may be able to bring a direct suit against a wrongdoer. But if the company is owned 50/50 and your client is one of the 50% owners seeking to sue the other 50% owner in the company’s name, the analysis is different. Although Massachusetts has yet to issue a clear decision on this issue, other jurisdictions uniformly hold that a 50% owner may not bring suit against another 50% owner in the company’s name without following derivative procedures. See, e.g., Swart v. Pawar, No. 1:14-cv-10, ECF #162 (N.D.W.Va. Nov. 19, 2015); Barry v. Curtin, 993 F. Supp. 2d 347, 352-53 (E.D.N.Y. 2014); Crouse v. Mineo, 189 N.C. App. 232, 238-39 (2008).
If the entity is a limited liability company, G.L. c. 156C, § 56 imposes additional constraints on a plaintiff’s standing. It requires that a plaintiff alleging a derivative claim be either: (1) a member authorized to sue by the vote of members owning more than 50% of the unreturned contributions to the LLC; or (2) a manager of the LLC authorized to sue by a vote of a majority of the managers. In either case, the vote of any member or manager who has an interest in the outcome of the suit that is adverse to the LLC’s interest must be excluded. Given this statutory rigor, unless the LLC’s operating documents state otherwise, a minority member, or single manager in a multi-manager LLC, would have to secure a favorable vote to obtain a non-interested majority in order to have standing to sue on behalf of the LLC. Compare G.L. c. 156D, § 7.41 (any shareholder holding stock at the time of wrongdoing may commence a derivative proceeding so long as they “fairly and adequately” represent the interests of the corporation).
2. Comply with Procedural Rules for Derivative Claims in Massachusetts State or Federal Court.
State and federal rules of civil procedure impose special pleading requirements on derivative claims. Specifically, in addition to any substantive law governed by the entity’s state of formation, Massachusetts Rule of Civil Procedure 23.1 requires that the derivative complaint:
- Be verified;
- Allege that the plaintiff was a shareholder or member at the time of the transaction at issue, or that the plaintiff’s share or membership thereafter devolved on him by operation of law from someone who was a shareholder or member at the time; and
- Allege with particularity the efforts made by the plaintiff to obtain the action he or she desires from the directors or comparable authority and the reasons for his failure to obtain the action.
The requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23.1 are similar, but add that the plaintiff must plead that “the action is not a collusive one to confer jurisdiction that the court would otherwise lack.” The requirements of the Massachusetts Rule can be waived if a defendant proceeds to trial without addressing these issues, see Diamond v. Pappathanasi, 78 Mass. App. Ct. 77, 89 (2010) (involving a general partnership), but there is no analogous case law concerning the Federal Rule.
You also must name the company as a nominal defendant in any derivative action when filing suit in Massachusetts state or federal court, regardless of the state of formation of the entity. See Fusco v. Rocky Mountain I Investments Ltd. P’ship, 42 Mass. App. Ct. 441, 447 (1997); Gabriel v. Preble, 396 F.3d 10, 14-15 (1st Cir. 2005).
3. Properly Apply Substantive Law on Demand Requirements Prior to Filing a Derivative Suit.
The most frequently litigated issue of substantive law in derivative cases is demand/demand futility. Massachusetts substantive law imposes hurdles additional to the procedural requirement of Mass. R. Civ. P. 23.1.
A plaintiff intending to bring a derivative claim on behalf of a Massachusetts corporation must first demand that the corporation pursue the claim. G.L. c. 156D, § 7.42. “The rationale behind the demand requirement is that, as a basic principle of corporate governance, the board of directors or majority of shareholders should set the corporation’s business policy, including the decision whether to pursue a lawsuit.” Harhen v. Brown, 431 Mass. 838, 844 (2010). The procedure for making demand is detailed and is set forth in G.L. c. 156D, §§ 7.40, et seq. Massachusetts is a universal demand state, which means that demand must be made even if the plaintiff believes it would be futile due to a board’s interest or lack of independence. See Johnston, 453 Mass. at 578 n.15.
A plaintiff may only initiate a derivative action once the corporation has either (i) refused a demand to bring suit; or (ii) ignored the demand for at least 90 days (or 120 days if the decision regarding whether to pursue the claims is submitted to the shareholders for a vote). A derivative plaintiff may file suit before expiration of the waiting period if the plaintiff can show that irreparable injury would result by waiting for the period to expire. G.L. c. 156D, § 7.42.
If your client’s demand is refused and she disagrees with the corporation’s decision, you should carefully study G.L. c. 156D, § 7.44 and be prepared to challenge the refusal in your complaint and in your opposition to the inevitable motion to dismiss. In this context, the “business judgment rule” precludes the suit if the corporation can show that it determined in good faith and after reasonable inquiry that the suit would not be in the best interests of the corporation. G.L. c. 156D, § 7.44(a). Although challenging a director vote to refuse a demand is difficult because of the protections of the business judgment rule, Judge Kaplan of the Superior Court’s Business Litigation Session recently denied a motion to dismiss derivative claims in just that context. See Brining v. Donovan, No. 1684-CV-3422-BLS1 (Mass. Super. Ct. Sept. 14, 2017). The court questioned the directors’ independence given their close ties with the alleged wrongdoer and also found reasonable doubt as to whether the board conducted its investigation in good faith because its conclusion in the face of glaring financial improprieties was “so different from what an independent Board would be expected to do.” Id.
Limited Liability Companies
In contrast to corporation derivative suits, the futility exception is still alive in the context of LLC derivative suits, but must be well-pleaded to satisfy Mass. R. Civ. P. 23.1. See Billings, 449 Mass. at 289-90 n.19; see also Harhen, 431 Mass. at 844 (futility exception is pled by alleging that “a majority of [members] are alleged to have participated in wrongdoing, or are otherwise interested” and adopting definition of “interested” director as stated in ALI’s Principles of Corporate Governance, §§ 1.15 & 1.23); Diamond, 78 Mass. App. Ct. at 89 (“to satisfy rule 23.1, a complaint in a derivative action must plead with particularity either the presuit demand the plaintiff has made or the reasons why making such demand would have been futile”).
Limited partners alleging damage to the partnership must make demand upon the general partner or allege the reasons that doing so would be futile. G.L. c. 109, § 58.
4. Follow Procedural and Substantive Rules at the Conclusion of a Derivative Case.
A derivative proceeding filed in Massachusetts may not be discontinued or settled without court approval. Mass. R. Civ. P. 23.1; G.L. c. 156D, § 7.45.
As discussed above, damages recovered on a derivative claim will go to the entity. The Massachusetts Appeals Court recently noted that there may be some irony, particularly in the context of a close corporation, if this rule results in the wrongdoer benefiting from a share in the recovery. See Beninati v. Borghi, 90 Mass. App. Ct. 566, 567, n.11 (2016). This irony can be mitigated by the trial judge, who is “free to take the equities into account in fashioning any remedy under c. 93A.” Id. In an effort to remedy that type of unfair result, on remand to the Business Litigation Session in Beninati, Judge Sanders recently reduced a G.L. c. 93A damages award by a wrongdoer’s percentage of ownership interest in the company and directed that the company “shall not permit” any distribution of the damages to the wrongdoer. Beninati v. Borghi, Nos. 1284-cv-1985-BLS2, 1384-cv-1772-BLS2 (Mass. Super. Ct. June 30, 2017). An appeal of that decision is currently pending.
Massachusetts law authorizes the court to award attorneys’ fees and costs to the plaintiff upon conclusion of a case if the court finds that the proceeding has resulted in a “substantial benefit to the corporation.” G.L. c. 156D, § 7.46; see also Beninati , 90 Mass. App. Ct. at 568 (affirming denial of fee application in part because time records failed to make that distinction). The court may award the defendant its fees and costs if the court finds that the proceeding was commenced or maintained without reasonable cause or for an improper purpose. G.L. c. 156C, § 57 contains parallel fee-shifting provisions for derivative claims in the Massachusetts LLC context. Because Massachusetts law is not clear on the issue of whether an award of attorneys’ fees in derivative litigation is procedural or substantive, be sure to also understand the law of the entity’s formation state on this issue at the outset of your case.
Tara J. Myslinski is a partner in the business litigation boutique O’Connor Carnathan & Mack LLC based in Burlington. She focuses her practice in complex commercial and corporate litigation, frequently involving small-business shareholder disputes, complex contractual disputes, trade secret and non-compete litigation, and internal pre-litigation investigations.
Stephanie R. Parker is an associate in the business litigation boutique O’Connor, Carnathan & Mack LLC, based in Burlington, MA. Ms. Parker graduated from Northeastern University School of Law in May 2013. Prior to joining OCM, Ms. Parker worked as a judicial intern for The Honorable Patti B. Saris at the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts.