The Deadlocked Two-Member LLC
Mira and Dev formed a two-member LLC three years ago to run a specialty coffee roastery. Their operating agreement is silent on deadlock, dissolution, and member exit, and it has no buy-sell provision. Each holds 50 percent. Mira manages roasting and production; Dev handles sales and finances. Profits have been split evenly and both draw equal monthly distributions. For eight months they have disagreed over whether to open a second location. Dev has blocked every budget that includes expansion, and Mira has blocked Dev's proposal to bring in an outside investor. Meetings now end in shouting, and two wholesale accounts have left because orders went unfilled during a billing dispute. The company still has positive cash flow and roughly $40,000 in the bank. Dev wants to dissolve and split the assets; Mira wants to keep operating. Neither will sell to the other at a price the other considers fair.
1. Dev asks whether he can force the LLC to dissolve. Identify the governing default rule, the standard a court would apply, and how the silent operating agreement affects the analysis.
Read the worked answer
Because the operating agreement says nothing about dissolution, the statutory default controls. Under the uniform LLC act framework adopted in most states, a member may seek judicial dissolution when it is not reasonably practicable to carry on the business in conformity with the operating agreement. The test is objective and operational, not whether the members personally dislike each other.
On these facts the answer is genuinely uncertain, which is the point. Dev can point to eight months of paralysis on capital decisions, lost wholesale accounts, and an even split that lets each member veto the other. Mira can point to continued profitability, $40,000 in cash, and an ongoing business that still functions day to day. Courts generally resist dissolving a solvent, operating company over management friction alone; deadlock that prevents fundamental decisions is stronger grounds than interpersonal conflict.
The silent agreement cuts both ways. It supplies no contractual exit mechanism, so Dev has no buy-sell right to invoke, but it also means no provision expressly limits dissolution to unanimous consent. Dev's realistic path is a judicial petition alleging deadlock, paired with evidence that the inability to make capital decisions is harming the business. Advise him to document concrete operational harm, not just the shouting.
2. Mira proposes that she simply buy Dev's interest at book value, which she calculates as roughly $30,000. Evaluate this offer and identify what a fairer process would require.
Read the worked answer
Book value is a defensible starting point only if the operating agreement says so; here it does not. Book value reflects depreciated assets and ignores goodwill, customer relationships, and the going-concern value of a profitable roastery with wholesale accounts. Mira's $30,000 figure is likely well below fair market value, and pressing it while simultaneously refusing to sell her own interest at that price is the kind of opportunistic conduct courts scrutinize closely.
A fairer process has three elements. First, an independent valuation of the membership interest on a going-concern basis, with any minority or marketability discounts expressly negotiated rather than assumed. Second, a neutral mechanism to break the price impasse, such as each side submitting a sealed bid and the higher bidder buying out the other, or a baseball-style appraisal where an expert picks the closer of two submitted values. Third, a written buy-sell agreement going forward that specifies trigger events, valuation method, payment terms, and funding.
Note the fiduciary overlay: members owe each other duties of loyalty and care, and a member who uses control over company information or finances to depress a buyout price risks a breach claim. Mira should disclose the financials and negotiate in good faith.
3. If the members instead wanted to fix this prospectively, what provisions should the operating agreement contain, and why does each matter here?
Read the worked answer
Four categories of provisions would have prevented this standoff.
Deadlock resolution: a defined escalation ladder, such as mediation, then a neutral tiebreaker, then a specified remedy. Without it, a 50/50 split converts every disagreement into a veto.
Buy-sell mechanics: trigger events (deadlock, death, disability, divorce, attempted transfer), a valuation method, a payment schedule, and funding through life insurance or a sinking fund. This converts an exit dispute into an arithmetic exercise.
Supermajority or delegated authority: specify which decisions require both members and which the manager may make alone, so routine budgets do not become existential fights. Dev's billing dispute shows the cost of ambiguity.
Dissolution and dissociation terms: state expressly who may seek dissolution and on what grounds, and whether a member may dissociate without triggering winding up. Silence here defaulted the parties into litigation.
Counsel should also address information rights and a dispute-resolution clause selecting mediation or arbitration, which is faster and cheaper than a judicial dissolution petition.