3 ms·
Could you comment on the cause of action that references the existence of joint venture? Being somewhat familiar with that area of law it seems like that's a gr
by CPLX 11y ago
Could you comment on the cause of action that references the existence of joint venture? Being somewhat familiar with that area of law it seems like that's a great catch-all for any claims that Jeremy doesn't have any equity in the company specifically. That's an apparently somewhat sound doctrine that would imply that even if he has no shares in the company, there is a "joint venture" consisting of himself and that company which he still has a share of, and that said joint venture is subject to partnership law.
Am I reading that right?
- rayiner 11y agoSo creating a partnership (a form of joint venture) is extremely easy: if you get together as co-owners and operate a business enterprise for profit a partnership arises, whether or not you intended to create a partnership.[1] So if Guillory and Vogt operated as co-owners of a for-profit business, there might be a partnership. The partnership probably wouldn't be around today. It probably would have been terminated when Vogt "fired" Guillory. But if Guillory was a partner, he was entitled to some distribution of the partnership assets that existed at the time. Guillory's allegation here is basically that he never got that distribution, and Vogt took the IP that was among the partnership's assets to Cruise. The partnership claim isn't going to get him equity in Cruise. What it does get him will depend mostly on what IP he contributed and the harm to Guillory from Cruise not returning that IP. [1] At least in California, which follows the Uniform Partnership Act.