Court of Appeals Rules: What the “Value of His Interest in the Partnership” Means under New York Partnership Law

by Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler LLP
Contact

The New York Court of Appeals, in Congel v. Malfitano,[1] recently ruled that the “Poughkeepsie Galleria Company” (the “Partnership”) was not an at-will partnership and that therefore Defendant Marc Malfitano’s (the “Defendant”) unilateral dissolution of the partnership breached the partnership agreement.  In addition, under Section 69 of the New York Partnership Law, the Court sustained the Appellate Division’s valuation of the Defendant’s partnership interest, including application of a minority discount.  The Court modified the order on appeal, holding that the Second Department erred in awarding legal fees in contravention of the American Rule on attorneys’ fee awards.

Factual Background

In 1985, the Defendant in Congel, along with seven others, formed a general partnership to own, operate, and manage the Poughkeepsie Galleria shopping mall.  Moselle Associates was the majority owner, holding approximately 56% of the Partnership.  The Defendant began with a 2.25% ownership interest, which increased to 3.08% by the 2000s.[2]

The partners memorialized their Partnership in a written agreement (the “Agreement”), which provided that the Partnership “shall continue until it is terminated as hereinafter provided.”[3]  The Agreement also specified that the Partnership would dissolve upon “[t]he election by the Partners to dissolve the Partnership” or “[t]he happening of any event which makes it unlawful for the business of the Partnership to be carried on or for the Partners to carry on in Partnership.”[4]  The Agreement further provided that “[a]ll decisions to be made by the Partners shall be made by the casting of votes at a meeting of such Partners” and that “[t]he affirmative vote of no less than fifty-one percent” of the partners “shall be required to approve any matter presented for decision.”[5]

By the mid-2000s, the Defendant became troubled by the conduct of the Partnership’s Executive Committee (the “Plaintiffs”).  According to his complaint, the Defendant voiced his concerns, but they went unheard. 

Ultimately, on November 24, 2006, the Defendant sent his partners a letter announcing his intent to dissolve the Partnership due to a “fundamental breakdown in the relationship between and among us as partners,”[6] citing Section 62(1)(b) of the New York Partnership Law (“NYPL”).  Section 62(1)(b) provides that a partner may unilaterally dissolve a partnership, without violating the partnership agreement, if the agreement does not state a “definite term or particular undertaking.”[7]  In response, the remaining partners maintained that the Defendant had wrongfully dissolved the Partnership, and they continued operating the Partnership under the same name pursuant to NYPL § 69(2)(b).[8]

Procedural History

In 2007, the Plaintiffs filed a breach of contract action against the Defendant on behalf of the Partnership, seeking a declaration that the Defendant had wrongfully dissolved the Partnership.  Plaintiffs claimed that the Defendant had done so in “order to force the partnership ‘to buy out . . . his interest at a steep premium.’”[9]  Defendant asserted that the Partnership was at-will because the Agreement did not have a “definite term” or “particular undertaking” as required by NYPL § 62(1)(b).  Defendant interposed a counterclaim seeking to recover the value of his Partnership interest under NYPL § 69(2)(c)(II).  Defendant also cross-moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a cause of action.[10]

The Duchess County Supreme Court denied Defendant’s cross-motion to dismiss.  Plaintiffs thereafter moved for summary judgment, asserting that the Agreement provided just two methods for dissolving the Partnership, and that the Defendant’s unilateral action to dissolve the Partnership breached the Agreement.[11]  The trial court granted summary judgment to the Plaintiffs, holding that the Partnership was not at-will, given that the Agreement specified a “particular undertaking” (i.e., to own, operate, and manage the mall) within the meaning of NYPL § 62(1)(b); therefore, the Defendant’s unilateral dissolution action breached the Agreement.[12]

The Defendant appealed.  In 2009, the Appellate Division Second Department upheld the trial court’s decision but on different grounds, finding that the Agreement specified a “definite term” under NYPL § 62(1)(b) because the Agreement provided that the Partnership would continue until a majority of partners elected to dissolve it.[13]  The Second Department remitted the case back to the Supreme Court to determine the amount of any damages owed on Plaintiffs’ breach of contract claim and the “value of [Defendant’s] interest in the partnership”[14] under NYPL § 69(2)(b).[15]

On remand, the Supreme Court held a bench trial to determine the value of the Defendant’s interest in the Partnership and Plaintiffs’ damages.  Both sides stipulated that the value of the Defendant’s Partnership interest was $4,850,000.[16]  But the parties disagreed as to whether the stipulated value included the Partnership’s goodwill.  If it did, then the goodwill would need to be deducted from the Partnership’s value under NYPL § 69.  Each side offered expert testimony on whether:  (1) the Partnership had goodwill; (2) the value of the Partnership interest should be reduced for lack of marketability; and (3) the Partnership’s value should be further reduced to account for Defendant’s status as a minority partner.[17]

The Plaintiffs’ valuation expert testified that the value of the Partnership reflected goodwill of 44%, by which the Defendant’s interest should be reduced proportionately.  That expert further testified that the value of the Defendant’s interest should be also reduced by a marketability discount of 35% and a minority discount of 66%.  According to the Plaintiffs’ expert, the Agreement contained a restriction on transferability—upon the sale of a partner’s Partnership interest, the selling-partner would still be jointly and severally liable for 5 years, along with the buying-partner, for any of the Partnership’s capital costs.  The Plaintiffs’ expert opined that this contractual restriction affected not only the marketability of a partner’s interest, but also warranted a minority discount.[18]

The Defendant’s expert contested the goodwill calculation, arguing that the Partnership was a real estate holding company and did not have any goodwill.  The Defendant’s expert did not challenge the applicability of a marketability discount; instead, the expert argued that the discount should be 25%.  Further, the expert failed to contest the minority discount because the Defendant contended that a minority discount was impermissible as a matter of law.[19]

The Plaintiffs presented a second expert to show that Plaintiffs’ claimed legal fees were a direct result of the Defendant’s wrongful dissolution of the Partnership, and that those fees should be included as damages since they were necessary actions to avoid a forced liquidation of the Partnership.[20]

The trial court found that the Partnership did possess goodwill because the mall was already established and attracted loyal shoppers.  But the court valued that goodwill at 15%, much less than the Plaintiffs’ expert on this point.  Next, the trial judge applied a marketability discount of 35%, agreeing with the Plaintiffs’ expert.  The trial judge, however, declined to apply any minority discount, concluding that prior cases had barred the use of such a discount for closely held corporations.[21]  Lastly, the trial judge held that the Plaintiffs were entitled to attorney’s fees and experts’ fees as part of their damages, because those costs were “not incidental to the litigation” but instead were “damages caused by the Defendant’s breach.”[22]  The Supreme Court ruled that the value of Defendant’s Partnership interest was $1,083.467.50 (not considering prejudgment interest).[23]

Accordingly, both parties appealed the trial court’s decision.  The Appellate Division adhered to its prior decision regarding the Defendant’s breach of the Agreement and distinguished the case from a 2013 Court of Appeals decision in Gelman v. Buehler.[24]  Next, the court addressed the issue of a minority discount, which was one of first impression for the Second Department.[25]  The court failed to find the lower court’s reasoning to be persuasive, which had emphasized the N.Y. Business Corporation Law and not the NYPL.[26]  Instead, the Appellate Division relied on a decision by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, that state’s highest court, in Anastos v. Sable, which “interpret[ed] a partnership statute that is identical in all relevant respects” to the NYPL § 69.[27]  The Second Department modified the lower court’s decision, finding as had the Massachusetts court that “the partnership remains a going concern, and the defendant has no right to compel a liquidation sale of the partnership's shopping mall and receive a proportionate share of the liquidation value of that asset.”[28]  Therefore, “a minority discount may properly be applied to account for the defendant's lack of control in the partnership as a going concern.”[29]  The court thus remanded the case to recalculate the value of the Defendant’s Partnership interest.[30]  After recalculating that value, the trial court determined that the Defendant owed the Plaintiffs $911,387.75.[31]

Discussion

On appeal to the Court of Appeals, the Court affirmed, in part, and modified, in part, the order of the Second Department, in a 5-2 opinion by Judge Eugene M. Fahey.  The majority began its analysis by restating that a partnership is: “a voluntary, contractual association in which persons carry on a business for profit as co-owners.”[32]  According to the Court, the NYPL “creates default provisions that fill gaps in partnership agreements, but where the agreement clearly states the means by which a partnership will dissolve, or other aspects of partnership dissolution, it is the agreement that governs the change in relations between partners. . . .”[33]

First, the Court addressed whether the Defendant’s unilateral dissolution action violated the Agreement or the NYPL § 69.[34]  If not, the remaining issues would be moot.

The Court agreed with the courts below, ruling that the Defendant’s unilateral dissolution of the Partnership violated the Agreement but held that those courts erred in applying NYPL § 62(1)(b).[35]  The Court proceeded to summarize the provisions of NYPL § 62(1)(b), explaining that a partnership is at-will and can be dissolved at any time by one or more of the partners if the partnership lacks a definite termination date or a particular objective to achieve.  On the other hand, when a partnership agreement contains a termination date, definite objective, or method of dissolution, the partnership is not at-will and a partner cannot unilaterally dissolve the partnership.  Moreover, a partner that wrongfully dissolves the partnership can be held liable to the other partners for a breach of the partnership agreement.[36]

In Congel, the Court of Appeals ruled that the Agreement was clear and contemplated a dissolution of the Partnership in only two instances:  (1) upon “[t]he election by the Partners to dissolve the Partnership”; (2) upon “[t]he happening of any event which makes it unlawful for the business of the Partnership to be carried on or for the Partners to carry it on in Partnership.”[37]  The Court concluded that the Partnership could not be deemed to be at-will.  Further, given that the Agreement was clear regarding dissolution, NYPL § 62(1)(b) did not apply.[38]  The Court reasoned that the parties had contracted out of Section 62 of the NYPL by providing for their own method of dissolution.  Therefore, the Defendant’s unilateral action to dissolve the Partnership breached the Agreement.

Next, the Court turned to the issue of the damages flowing from the Defendant’s breach.  The Court ruled that it was an error to award awarding attorneys’ and experts’ fees incurred during the lawsuit as part of the damages award.[39]  The Court explained that fee award was contrary to the American Rule against shifting legal fees and the Plaintiffs had failed to point to any provision of the Agreement, the NYPL, or the CPLR that would authorize an exception.[40]

The Court then addressed the valuation issues.  According to the NYPL, when a partner wrongfully dissolves a partnership in breach of a partnership agreement, the goodwill of the partnership is to be deducted in determining the value of the dissolving-partner’s partnership share.[41]  The Court defined goodwill as an “intangible asset of a business, corresponding in this context to what a buyer would pay for the business, over and above its value as a mere sum of tangible assets, because of  the patronage and support of regular customers.”[42]

The Defendant argued that the Partnership lacked goodwill as a matter of law because it is a real estate holding entity.  According to the Court, that generalization was incorrect given that goodwill is a fact-specific determination.  The Court of Appeals’ narrow scope of review left it without power to upset that determination absent findings of fact that are unsupported by the record.  The Court concluded that the record here supported a valuation of the Partnership that included a goodwill component given there was evidence that the mall attracted loyal customers, and that a goodwill discount was thus appropriately applied.[43]

The Court then affirmed the Appellate Division’s decision to apply the minority discount. The Court wrestled with the meaning of “value of his interest in the partnership” from NYPL § 69(2)(c)(II). [44]  The Court of Appeals agreed with the rationale of the Massachusetts high court decision in Anastos.  New York, like Massachusetts, has not adopted the 1997 Revised Uniform Partnership Act (“RUPA”) and the Massachusetts statute was “identical in all relevant respects to [N.Y.] Partnership Law § 69 (2)(c)(II).”[45]  Because the Partnership continues to operate, the Court held that the application of a minority discount was not erroneous as a matter of law:[46]  “the statute does not contemplate a valuation of the entire business as if it were being sold on the open market, but rather a determination of the fair market value of the wrongfully dissolving partner's interest as if that interest were being sold piecemeal and the rest of the business continuing as a going concern.”[47]  The Court noted that parties are free to contract out of a minority discount in their partnership agreement if they so choose, as with other provisions of the NYPL.[48]  Given that the parties, in Congel had not done so, the Court held that the minority discount was properly applied to the Defendant’s interest.[49]

Finally, the Court ruled that the Defendant’s appeal regarding the applicability of a marketability discount would not be considered because the Defendant had failed to preserve that challenge in the courts below.[50]

The Court remitted the case to the Supreme Court to recalculate the final valuation of the Defendant’s partnership interest.[51]

In dissent, Judge Paul G. Feinman disagreed only with the majority’s application of a minority discount.  He criticized the majority for failing to “advance[] an affirmative rationale” to support the application of a minority discount.[52]  The dissent, however, agreed that the meaning of “value” in the UPA is unclear.[53]  But Judge Feinman urged that an analysis of the RUPA can help interpret the meaning of “value.”[54]  Therefore, the dissent reasoned that “value” in the RUPA and UPA “means a pro rata share of the partnership’s value as a whole[]”[55] not the piecemeal fair market value of the minority interest.  Judge Feinman argued that the use of the minority discount to punish or deter wrongful conduct by partners is unnecessary since the NYPL already deters wrongful dissolution by requiring the dissolving partner to pay damages and discounting the value of the partnership interest that is attributable to goodwill. [56]

Conclusion

As Congel confirms, parties forming a general partnership are free to chart their own course and contract out of provisions of the NYPL.  However, when a partnership is silent regarding an area of the NYPL, courts will apply the relevant NYPL provision to that agreement.  Of note, the Court of Appeals concluded that a minority discount was appropriate in valuing a dissenting partner’s partnership interest in these circumstances.  Drafters of partnership agreements ought to keep these issues in mind in choosing options for a partnership.

Also of note is the Court’s reaffirmation of the American Rule regarding fee­­­­‑shifting.  This ruling reduces some of the negotiating leverage on the part of the partnership when a minority partner seeks to dissolve a partnership.  Again, this is an issue that can be addressed in drafting a partnership agreement.


[1] 2018 BL 104517 (Mar. 27, 2018).

[2] Id. at *1.

[3] Id.

[4] Id.

[5] Id.

[6] Congel v. Malfitano, 141 A.D.3d 64, 67 (2d Dep’t 2016).

[7] N.Y. Partnership Law § 62.

[8] Section 69 provides: “when dissolution is caused in contravention of the partnership agreement . . . [t]he partners who have not caused the dissolution wrongfully, if they all desire to continue the business in the same name . . . may do so, during the agreed term for the partnership and for that purpose may possess the partnership property, provided they . . . pay to any partner who has caused the dissolution wrongfully, the value of his interest in the partnership at the dissolution, less any damages recoverable . . . .  N.Y. Partnership Law § 69(2) (b). 

[9] Congel, 141 A.D.3d at 67.

[10] Congel, 2018 BL 104517, at *2.

[11] Id.  Although the case was not heard in a Commercial Division part, the Congel decision has potential ramifications for cases litigated in the Division across the State.

[12] Id. at *3.

[13] Congel v. Malfitano, 61 A.D.3d 807, 808-809 (2d Dep’t 2009).

[14] N.Y. Partnership Law § 69(2)(b).

[15] Congel, 2018 BL 104517, at *3.

[16] Id. at *3-4.

[17] Id. at *4.

[18] Id.

[19] Id.

[20] Id.

[21] Congel, 141 A.D.3d at 71-72;  See Matter of Friedman v Beway Realty Corp., 87 NY.2d 161 (1995)(holding minority discount should not be applied in determining the "fair value" of a dissenting shareholder's shares within the meaning of N.Y. Business Corporation Law §§ 623 and 1118).

[22] Congel, 2018 BL 104517, at *3.

[23] Id. at *5; [$4,850,000.00 – $727,500.00 (goodwill) – $1,442,875.00 (marketability) – $1,516,452.00 (attorneys’ fee) – $79,705.50 (expert fees)] = $1,083.467.50.

[24] Id. at *5-6; Gelman v. Buehler, 20 N.Y.3d 534 (2013) (ruling that a partner may unilaterally dissolve an oral partnership agreement because it did not provide a “definite term” or particular undertaking”). 

[25] Congel, 141 A.D.3d at 67.

[26] Id. at *73.

[27] Id., citing Anastos v. Sable, 819 N.E.2d 587 (Mass. 2004).

[28] Id. at *74-75.

[29] Id.

[30] Congel, 2018 BL 104517, at *6.

[31] Id. at *6; [$4,850,000.00 – $727,500.00 (goodwill) – $1,442,875.00 (marketability) – $1,516,452.00 (attorneys’ fee) – $79,705.50 (expert fees) – $1,768,552.50 (minority discount)] = $911,387.75.

[32] Id. at *1.

[33] Id.

[34] Id.

[35] Id. at *7.

[36] Id. at *8.

[37] Id.

[38] Id.

[39] Id. at *9.

[40] “Under the ‘American rule,’ to which this State adheres, the prevailing litigant ordinarily cannot collect its reasonable attorneys' fees from its unsuccessful opponents.” Hunt v. Sharp, 85 N.Y.2d 883, 885(1995) (internal citation removed).  See also Matter of A. G. Ship Maintenance Corp. v. Lezak, 69 N.Y.2d 1, 5 (1986).

[41] Congel, 2018 BL 104517, at *10. 

[42] Id. at *10-11.

[43] Id. at *11.

[44] Anastos v. Sable , 819 N.E.2d 587, 590-92 (Mass. 2004) (finding “[t]he method of valuation of a partnership interest in a going concern necessarily differs from the valuation of the same interest at the point of liquidation[]” and the former includes a minority discount).

[45] Congel, 2018 BL 104517, at *12.

[46] Id. at *14 n.13.

[47] Id. at *13.

[48] Id. at *15.

[49] Id. at *14-15.

[50] Id. at *12.  At trial, the Defendant’s expert conceded that the marketability discount would apply, and the parties only disputed what percentage would apply.

[51] Id. at *14.

[52] Id. at *15 (Feinman, J., dissenting).

[53] The NYPL is a UPA-based statute. Id. at *12.

[54] Id. at *16-17 (Feinman, J., dissenting).

[55] Id. at *17-18.

[56] Id. at *23.

DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler LLP | Attorney Advertising

Written by:

Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler LLP
Contact
more
less

Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler LLP on:

Readers' Choice 2017
Reporters on Deadline

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
Custom Email Digest
- hide

JD Supra Privacy Policy

Updated: May 25, 2018:

JD Supra is a legal publishing service that connects experts and their content with broader audiences of professionals, journalists and associations.

This Privacy Policy describes how JD Supra, LLC ("JD Supra" or "we," "us," or "our") collects, uses and shares personal data collected from visitors to our website (located at www.jdsupra.com) (our "Website") who view only publicly-available content as well as subscribers to our services (such as our email digests or author tools)(our "Services"). By using our Website and registering for one of our Services, you are agreeing to the terms of this Privacy Policy.

Please note that if you subscribe to one of our Services, you can make choices about how we collect, use and share your information through our Privacy Center under the "My Account" dashboard (available if you are logged into your JD Supra account).

Collection of Information

Registration Information. When you register with JD Supra for our Website and Services, either as an author or as a subscriber, you will be asked to provide identifying information to create your JD Supra account ("Registration Data"), such as your:

  • Email
  • First Name
  • Last Name
  • Company Name
  • Company Industry
  • Title
  • Country

Other Information: We also collect other information you may voluntarily provide. This may include content you provide for publication. We may also receive your communications with others through our Website and Services (such as contacting an author through our Website) or communications directly with us (such as through email, feedback or other forms or social media). If you are a subscribed user, we will also collect your user preferences, such as the types of articles you would like to read.

Information from third parties (such as, from your employer or LinkedIn): We may also receive information about you from third party sources. For example, your employer may provide your information to us, such as in connection with an article submitted by your employer for publication. If you choose to use LinkedIn to subscribe to our Website and Services, we also collect information related to your LinkedIn account and profile.

Your interactions with our Website and Services: As is true of most websites, we gather certain information automatically. This information includes IP addresses, browser type, Internet service provider (ISP), referring/exit pages, operating system, date/time stamp and clickstream data. We use this information to analyze trends, to administer the Website and our Services, to improve the content and performance of our Website and Services, and to track users' movements around the site. We may also link this automatically-collected data to personal information, for example, to inform authors about who has read their articles. Some of this data is collected through information sent by your web browser. We also use cookies and other tracking technologies to collect this information. To learn more about cookies and other tracking technologies that JD Supra may use on our Website and Services please see our "Cookies Guide" page.

How do we use this information?

We use the information and data we collect principally in order to provide our Website and Services. More specifically, we may use your personal information to:

  • Operate our Website and Services and publish content;
  • Distribute content to you in accordance with your preferences as well as to provide other notifications to you (for example, updates about our policies and terms);
  • Measure readership and usage of the Website and Services;
  • Communicate with you regarding your questions and requests;
  • Authenticate users and to provide for the safety and security of our Website and Services;
  • Conduct research and similar activities to improve our Website and Services; and
  • Comply with our legal and regulatory responsibilities and to enforce our rights.

How is your information shared?

  • Content and other public information (such as an author profile) is shared on our Website and Services, including via email digests and social media feeds, and is accessible to the general public.
  • If you choose to use our Website and Services to communicate directly with a company or individual, such communication may be shared accordingly.
  • Readership information is provided to publishing law firms and authors of content to give them insight into their readership and to help them to improve their content.
  • Our Website may offer you the opportunity to share information through our Website, such as through Facebook's "Like" or Twitter's "Tweet" button. We offer this functionality to help generate interest in our Website and content and to permit you to recommend content to your contacts. You should be aware that sharing through such functionality may result in information being collected by the applicable social media network and possibly being made publicly available (for example, through a search engine). Any such information collection would be subject to such third party social media network's privacy policy.
  • Your information may also be shared to parties who support our business, such as professional advisors as well as web-hosting providers, analytics providers and other information technology providers.
  • Any court, governmental authority, law enforcement agency or other third party where we believe disclosure is necessary to comply with a legal or regulatory obligation, or otherwise to protect our rights, the rights of any third party or individuals' personal safety, or to detect, prevent, or otherwise address fraud, security or safety issues.
  • To our affiliated entities and in connection with the sale, assignment or other transfer of our company or our business.

How We Protect Your Information

JD Supra takes reasonable and appropriate precautions to insure that user information is protected from loss, misuse and unauthorized access, disclosure, alteration and destruction. We restrict access to user information to those individuals who reasonably need access to perform their job functions, such as our third party email service, customer service personnel and technical staff. You should keep in mind that no Internet transmission is ever 100% secure or error-free. Where you use log-in credentials (usernames, passwords) on our Website, please remember that it is your responsibility to safeguard them. If you believe that your log-in credentials have been compromised, please contact us at privacy@jdsupra.com.

Children's Information

Our Website and Services are not directed at children under the age of 16 and we do not knowingly collect personal information from children under the age of 16 through our Website and/or Services. If you have reason to believe that a child under the age of 16 has provided personal information to us, please contact us, and we will endeavor to delete that information from our databases.

Links to Other Websites

Our Website and Services may contain links to other websites. The operators of such other websites may collect information about you, including through cookies or other technologies. If you are using our Website or Services and click a link to another site, you will leave our Website and this Policy will not apply to your use of and activity on those other sites. We encourage you to read the legal notices posted on those sites, including their privacy policies. We are not responsible for the data collection and use practices of such other sites. This Policy applies solely to the information collected in connection with your use of our Website and Services and does not apply to any practices conducted offline or in connection with any other websites.

Information for EU and Swiss Residents

JD Supra's principal place of business is in the United States. By subscribing to our website, you expressly consent to your information being processed in the United States.

  • Our Legal Basis for Processing: Generally, we rely on our legitimate interests in order to process your personal information. For example, we rely on this legal ground if we use your personal information to manage your Registration Data and administer our relationship with you; to deliver our Website and Services; understand and improve our Website and Services; report reader analytics to our authors; to personalize your experience on our Website and Services; and where necessary to protect or defend our or another's rights or property, or to detect, prevent, or otherwise address fraud, security, safety or privacy issues. Please see Article 6(1)(f) of the E.U. General Data Protection Regulation ("GDPR") In addition, there may be other situations where other grounds for processing may exist, such as where processing is a result of legal requirements (GDPR Article 6(1)(c)) or for reasons of public interest (GDPR Article 6(1)(e)). Please see the "Your Rights" section of this Privacy Policy immediately below for more information about how you may request that we limit or refrain from processing your personal information.
  • Your Rights
    • Right of Access/Portability: You can ask to review details about the information we hold about you and how that information has been used and disclosed. Note that we may request to verify your identification before fulfilling your request. You can also request that your personal information is provided to you in a commonly used electronic format so that you can share it with other organizations.
    • Right to Correct Information: You may ask that we make corrections to any information we hold, if you believe such correction to be necessary.
    • Right to Restrict Our Processing or Erasure of Information: You also have the right in certain circumstances to ask us to restrict processing of your personal information or to erase your personal information. Where you have consented to our use of your personal information, you can withdraw your consent at any time.

You can make a request to exercise any of these rights by emailing us at privacy@jdsupra.com or by writing to us at:

Privacy Officer
JD Supra, LLC
10 Liberty Ship Way, Suite 300
Sausalito, California 94965

You can also manage your profile and subscriptions through our Privacy Center under the "My Account" dashboard.

We will make all practical efforts to respect your wishes. There may be times, however, where we are not able to fulfill your request, for example, if applicable law prohibits our compliance. Please note that JD Supra does not use "automatic decision making" or "profiling" as those terms are defined in the GDPR.

  • Timeframe for retaining your personal information: We will retain your personal information in a form that identifies you only for as long as it serves the purpose(s) for which it was initially collected as stated in this Privacy Policy, or subsequently authorized. We may continue processing your personal information for longer periods, but only for the time and to the extent such processing reasonably serves the purposes of archiving in the public interest, journalism, literature and art, scientific or historical research and statistical analysis, and subject to the protection of this Privacy Policy. For example, if you are an author, your personal information may continue to be published in connection with your article indefinitely. When we have no ongoing legitimate business need to process your personal information, we will either delete or anonymize it, or, if this is not possible (for example, because your personal information has been stored in backup archives), then we will securely store your personal information and isolate it from any further processing until deletion is possible.
  • Onward Transfer to Third Parties: As noted in the "How We Share Your Data" Section above, JD Supra may share your information with third parties. When JD Supra discloses your personal information to third parties, we have ensured that such third parties have either certified under the EU-U.S. or Swiss Privacy Shield Framework and will process all personal data received from EU member states/Switzerland in reliance on the applicable Privacy Shield Framework or that they have been subjected to strict contractual provisions in their contract with us to guarantee an adequate level of data protection for your data.

California Privacy Rights

Pursuant to Section 1798.83 of the California Civil Code, our customers who are California residents have the right to request certain information regarding our disclosure of personal information to third parties for their direct marketing purposes.

You can make a request for this information by emailing us at privacy@jdsupra.com or by writing to us at:

Privacy Officer
JD Supra, LLC
10 Liberty Ship Way, Suite 300
Sausalito, California 94965

Some browsers have incorporated a Do Not Track (DNT) feature. These features, when turned on, send a signal that you prefer that the website you are visiting not collect and use data regarding your online searching and browsing activities. As there is not yet a common understanding on how to interpret the DNT signal, we currently do not respond to DNT signals on our site.

Access/Correct/Update/Delete Personal Information

For non-EU/Swiss residents, if you would like to know what personal information we have about you, you can send an e-mail to privacy@jdsupra.com. We will be in contact with you (by mail or otherwise) to verify your identity and provide you the information you request. We will respond within 30 days to your request for access to your personal information. In some cases, we may not be able to remove your personal information, in which case we will let you know if we are unable to do so and why. If you would like to correct or update your personal information, you can manage your profile and subscriptions through our Privacy Center under the "My Account" dashboard. If you would like to delete your account or remove your information from our Website and Services, send an e-mail to privacy@jdsupra.com.

Changes in Our Privacy Policy

We reserve the right to change this Privacy Policy at any time. Please refer to the date at the top of this page to determine when this Policy was last revised. Any changes to our Privacy Policy will become effective upon posting of the revised policy on the Website. By continuing to use our Website and Services following such changes, you will be deemed to have agreed to such changes.

Contacting JD Supra

If you have any questions about this Privacy Policy, the practices of this site, your dealings with our Website or Services, or if you would like to change any of the information you have provided to us, please contact us at: privacy@jdsupra.com.

JD Supra Cookie Guide

As with many websites, JD Supra's website (located at www.jdsupra.com) (our "Website") and our services (such as our email article digests)(our "Services") use a standard technology called a "cookie" and other similar technologies (such as, pixels and web beacons), which are small data files that are transferred to your computer when you use our Website and Services. These technologies automatically identify your browser whenever you interact with our Website and Services.

How We Use Cookies and Other Tracking Technologies

We use cookies and other tracking technologies to:

  1. Improve the user experience on our Website and Services;
  2. Store the authorization token that users receive when they login to the private areas of our Website. This token is specific to a user's login session and requires a valid username and password to obtain. It is required to access the user's profile information, subscriptions, and analytics;
  3. Track anonymous site usage; and
  4. Permit connectivity with social media networks to permit content sharing.

There are different types of cookies and other technologies used our Website, notably:

  • "Session cookies" - These cookies only last as long as your online session, and disappear from your computer or device when you close your browser (like Internet Explorer, Google Chrome or Safari).
  • "Persistent cookies" - These cookies stay on your computer or device after your browser has been closed and last for a time specified in the cookie. We use persistent cookies when we need to know who you are for more than one browsing session. For example, we use them to remember your preferences for the next time you visit.
  • "Web Beacons/Pixels" - Some of our web pages and emails may also contain small electronic images known as web beacons, clear GIFs or single-pixel GIFs. These images are placed on a web page or email and typically work in conjunction with cookies to collect data. We use these images to identify our users and user behavior, such as counting the number of users who have visited a web page or acted upon one of our email digests.

JD Supra Cookies. We place our own cookies on your computer to track certain information about you while you are using our Website and Services. For example, we place a session cookie on your computer each time you visit our Website. We use these cookies to allow you to log-in to your subscriber account. In addition, through these cookies we are able to collect information about how you use the Website, including what browser you may be using, your IP address, and the URL address you came from upon visiting our Website and the URL you next visit (even if those URLs are not on our Website). We also utilize email web beacons to monitor whether our emails are being delivered and read. We also use these tools to help deliver reader analytics to our authors to give them insight into their readership and help them to improve their content, so that it is most useful for our users.

Analytics/Performance Cookies. JD Supra also uses the following analytic tools to help us analyze the performance of our Website and Services as well as how visitors use our Website and Services:

  • HubSpot - For more information about HubSpot cookies, please visit legal.hubspot.com/privacy-policy.
  • New Relic - For more information on New Relic cookies, please visit www.newrelic.com/privacy.
  • Google Analytics - For more information on Google Analytics cookies, visit www.google.com/policies. To opt-out of being tracked by Google Analytics across all websites visit http://tools.google.com/dlpage/gaoptout. This will allow you to download and install a Google Analytics cookie-free web browser.

Facebook, Twitter and other Social Network Cookies. Our content pages allow you to share content appearing on our Website and Services to your social media accounts through the "Like," "Tweet," or similar buttons displayed on such pages. To accomplish this Service, we embed code that such third party social networks provide and that we do not control. These buttons know that you are logged in to your social network account and therefore such social networks could also know that you are viewing the JD Supra Website.

Controlling and Deleting Cookies

If you would like to change how a browser uses cookies, including blocking or deleting cookies from the JD Supra Website and Services you can do so by changing the settings in your web browser. To control cookies, most browsers allow you to either accept or reject all cookies, only accept certain types of cookies, or prompt you every time a site wishes to save a cookie. It's also easy to delete cookies that are already saved on your device by a browser.

The processes for controlling and deleting cookies vary depending on which browser you use. To find out how to do so with a particular browser, you can use your browser's "Help" function or alternatively, you can visit http://www.aboutcookies.org which explains, step-by-step, how to control and delete cookies in most browsers.

Updates to This Policy

We may update this cookie policy and our Privacy Policy from time-to-time, particularly as technology changes. You can always check this page for the latest version. We may also notify you of changes to our privacy policy by email.

Contacting JD Supra

If you have any questions about how we use cookies and other tracking technologies, please contact us at: privacy@jdsupra.com.

- hide

This website uses cookies to improve user experience, track anonymous site usage, store authorization tokens and permit sharing on social media networks. By continuing to browse this website you accept the use of cookies. Click here to read more about how we use cookies.