Unit 6 Discussion with students
respond to two of your peers with meaningful responses.
1st students discussion
I believe that the ethical implications that are at handdefinitely areconcerns that exist. However, I believe that attempting to remove a partner from a general partnership would be very difficult to do, without their willingness to leave the company.
I believe that ethically the first course of action should be to attempt to remove the undesired partybyhaving discussions, negotiations, and generally honest sessions with the individual to attempt toeither change their behavior so that they can continue in the partnership or remove them in a way that is favorable to all parties. If this however does not result in a productive outcome, and if this results in significant pushback from the employee and significant difficulties, then I believe theremaining successful partnersmay be forced to remove the individual by dissolving the partnership and re-forming their partnership.
2nd students discussion
The very question of either or not it is ethical a general partnership may be dissolved and refored with out of the partner has been consider in the case Dawson v White & Case. The defendants, the law firm of White & Case, did terminate a partner by dissolving the firm and reforming without him. The partner removed, Evan Dawson sued White & Case for wrongful termination. The Case was ultimately taken up and decided by the New York Court of Appeals.
"After a hearing, the Special Referee valued the assets of White & Case, including the firm's goodwill as an asset and excluding the present value of unfunded pension plan benefits as a liability of the dissolved firm. Supreme Court confirmed the report and entered judgment in Dawson's favor. White & Case subsequently entered a partial satisfaction of judgment, reflecting payment to Dawson of the uncontested portion of the judgment, which consisted of Dawson's capital account plus interest." (Dawson v White & Case,88 N.Y.2d 666, 672 N.E.2d 589, 649 N.Y.S.2d XXXXXXXXXX)).
It was ultimately decided that White & Case had violated goodwill by dissolving and reforming the firm without Dawson, and thus unethical.
2 different reponeses from 2 students