Clinton v. Aspinwall

Supreme Court of Connecticut · July 29, 2025 · No. SC21072

Summary

This concurrence by Justice McDonald agrees with the majority's reversal of a trial court's jury instruction regarding an LLC operating agreement's exculpatory and best judgment provisions under Delaware law. The justice emphasizes that the dispute is governed by Delaware law, not Connecticut law, and should not establish precedent for Connecticut LLC matters. Additionally, the concurrence advocates for addressing the plaintiff's previously struck claim for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing to prevent further protracted litigation and unnecessary retrials.

Court
Supreme Court of Connecticut
Writing for the Court
McDONALD, J.
Jurisdiction
Connecticut
Decision date
July 29, 2025
Docket number
SC21072
Procedural posture
Appeal from the Superior Court of Connecticut
Precedential value
published
Parties
John B. Clinton v. Michael E. Aspinwall, Steven F. Piaker, and David W. Young
Disposition
remanded

Topics

limited liability companiesfiduciary dutycorporate governancebreach of contractappellate jurisdiction

Practice areas

corporate lawcontracts

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the Superior Court erred in striking the plaintiff's claim for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing.
  2. Whether the Superior Court erred in striking the plaintiff's Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act claim.

Key quotations

I agree that the jury was improperly instructed that the second sentence of § 3.4 of the operating agreement of CCP Equity Partners, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company (LLC), imposes a duty on managers not to act in bad faith or with gross negligence or wilful misconduct because, under settled Delaware law, this sort of exculpatory provision does not impose affirmative duties on the parties.

Factual background

John B. Clinton, a member of the Delaware LLC CCP Equity Partners, alleged that the managers, including Michael E. Aspinwall, expelled him, maintained an unreasonably large capital reserve, and distributed earnings in a manner that violated the implied covenant of good faith and the duty of best judgment under the operating agreement.

Procedural history

The trial court struck the plaintiff's implied covenant and CUTPA claims. The appellate court dismissed the defendants' earlier appeals. The present appeal seeks review of the trial court's rulings and a new trial.

Remand instructions

Plaintiff may seek leave to amend his complaint to reinstate the implied covenant claim; the trial court should permit a jury to consider that claim on remand.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…