TCS members also signed an Enterprise Agreement that governs the management and operation of TCS. As part of this agreement, the parties selected defendant Thomas Sucher, a member of Virtual, to lead TCS. The enterprise agreement limited Sucher`s authority as a manager. Thus, according to the operating contract, “without the express consent” of one of walker`s applicants, Daniel L. Sessions, the orders on behalf of TCS could not be executed. The court granted the accused`s request for a summary decision and dismissed the Walker plaintiffs` cross-appeal. In its order, the court stated: (1) The Walker applicants, as former members of TCS, sought damages because virtual and Viser allegedly violated the members` agreement; (2) the members` agreement benefited the CHT alone; (3) walker applicants were not third-party beneficiaries of the members` agreement; (4) there is no provision in The Georgia Limited Liability Act that would allow a limited liability corporation to survive the dissolution of the corporation in these circumstances; (5) the Walker complainants provided no evidence that Virtual or Viseur were in competition with TCS prior to the court-ordered liquidation. The tribunal found that “because [TCS] [after the dissolution] could not operate, there was no forum to enforce the competition agreement in the members` agreement.” 2. The Walker applicants also assert that the court erred in the decision as to whether “Virtual or viewfinder was in competition with Color[.]” Like the breach of the duty of trust, this issue was not served in court. That is why we are going back to the Court`s judgment on that decision. See Aycock, supra. A common misunderstanding regarding the claim that you or someone else violated an enterprise agreement is that the consequences are minimal. The misunderstanding is based on the false premise that an owner may, because of his position, get away with it in violation of the operating contract.
In fact, a significant violation can lead you to eliminate as the owner of the business, according to Jennifer Reuting`s Limited Liability Companies for Dummies. The relationship between the parties began in 2008, when Leaf Clean Energy Co. (Leaf Parent), through the complainant leaf Invenergy Co. (Leaf), invested $30 million in a Series B investment for the appellant of the defendant Invenergy Wind, a wind energy developer.