Senior Analytics Data Engineer

Steering toward a hearing: Second Department reverses summary denial of auto body repair shop dissolution. Recently, my partner Peter Sluka wrote about two Kings County Supreme Court decisions testing the procedural boundaries of shareholder-oppression claims under BCL § 1104-a. One of the lessons from those cases is that procedure can shape the outcome of a case as much as the merits. Today's case highlights that point: Matter of Rizzotto v Romano, 2026 NY Slip Op 05401 (2d Dept 2026). The Second Department provided a lifeline to today's petitioner, reversing summary dismissal of his BCL 1104-a dissolution petition, holding that the supreme court should not have denied dissolution without an evidentiary hearing, and remanding for further proceedings. Manhasset Collision, Ltd. Manhasset Collision, Ltd. ("MCL") is an auto body repair shop on Long Island with approximately 16 employees. Ben Romano (the respondent and majority shareholder) incorporated MCL in 2018 and was its sole owner until recent events. In February 2020, petitioner Anthony Rizzotto acquired a 25% interest from Ben for $200,000 and loaned another $25,000 to the company. Anthony joined MCL after 27 years at Geico. The parties executed a Stockholders Agreement dated February 26, 2020. Key terms of the Stockholders Agreement included: * Management Role: Anthony was designated "manager of the Corporation and will run the day to day affairs." He could not be terminated "other than for cause as defined herein." The Agreement did not define "cause." * Compensation: Anthony's base salary was $2,000/week for an initial six-month period, increasing to $2,200/week ($114,400/year) thereafter. He was also entitled to health insurance reimbursement up to $725/month. * Non-Compete: Restricted area defined as Manhasset; broader restrictions applied in cases of death, disability, or agreed sale. The Stockholders Agreement also contained certain profit-sharing provisions, withdrawal and buyout provisions, as well as provisions concerning the allocation of proceeds should the company be sold. The dispute. The business relationship did not last long. In August 2023, Ben sent Anthony an undated letter purporting to terminate his employment for cause, citing the unauthorized signing of a check in Ben's name, inadequate oversight of shop employees, and unilateral changes to work hours. Anthony rejected the termination, arguing that "cause" was undefined in the Stockholders Agreement, and therefore, Anthony could not be terminated "for cause" or otherwise. On August 16, 2023, MCL withdrew the termination letter and asked Anthony to return to work. About a week later, Anthony returned to work but he contends that the environment was immediately hostile, claiming that Ben assigned him tasks inconsistent with his managerial role (cleaning the attic, organizing auto parts); restricted Anthony's interactions with customers; yelled "I am the owner. I am the boss. I tell you what to do"; and told him he was "fired." Ben's account, unsurprisingly, differs. He contends that upon Anthony's return to work, Anthony became argumentative and refused to accomplish pressing tasks in the shop. Ben claimed he "instructed Anthony that if he refused to do his job as head manager, that he would not get paid, and should leave," but denied ever "firing" Anthony. From that point, August 22, 2023, MCL stopped paying Anthony's salary and health insurance benefits. Anthony did not return to MCL and began working for a competing autobody shop approximately five miles away. Ben, meanwhile, commenced a separate action in Suffolk County seeking a declaratory judgment that Anthony was not a shareholder of MCL - relying in part on the fact that MCL had never issued Anthony a K-1 and that Anthony had insisted on W-2 employee treatment. Anthony's dissolution petition falls short in Nassau County Commercial Division. In January 2024, Anthony commenced a special proceeding by Order to Show Cause seeking dissolution under BCL § 1104-a, an accounting, and interim restraints. Anthony alleged shareholder oppression, including that Ben terminated his employment, ceased paying his compensation and benefits, and misappropriated approximately $500,000 of company funds for noncorporate purposes. In a Decision and Order entered May 24, 2024, Nassau County Commercial Division Justice Jerome Murphy denied the dissolution petition without conducting an evidentiary hearing. The court began with the principle that, in determining whether conduct is oppressive, the majority's actions should not be deemed oppressive "simply because the petitioner's subjective hopes and desires in joining the venture are not fulfilled" and that "[d]isappointment alone should not necessarily be equated with oppression" (citing Matter of Kemp & Beatley, Inc., 64 NY2d 63, 73 [1984]). The court found that Anthony's allegations of oppression and looting, as recited in the Petition, were "largely unsubstantiated." The court further noted that, in opposition, Ben submitted "unrebutted" and "unassailable" evidence - including financial records and an affidavit addressing the challenged payments - as well as evidence that MCL had paid Anthony total compensation of $623,054.57 during his tenure, and that Anthony "refused to return to work" and was working for a competitor. The court concluded that "given the unsubstantiated allegations in the petition, coupled with the Respondent's utterly undisputed evidence, the Court finds the Petitioner has failed to establish either the existence of 'oppressive conduct' or 'looting' thus rendering dissolution inappropriate." Anthony moved for leave to reargue, which motion was denied. Anthony appealed (read the briefs here and here) The Second Department provides Anthony a lifeline. The Second Department disagreed with the trial court's decision, holding that the court "should not have denied that branch of the petition which was for judicial dissolution of MCL pursuant to Business Corporation Law § 1104-a without conducting a hearing." Without engaging in a detailed factual analysis, the appellate court concluded that "[t]he allegations in the verified petition and its supporting papers were prima facie sufficient to establish a basis for judicial dissolution," holding that "[i]n light of the conflicting claims by the parties regarding the relevant facts, the court should have conducted a hearing before determining whether judicial dissolution was warranted." The Appellate Court thus reversed and remanded back to the trial court for further proceedings. Evidentiary hearing or no evidentiary hearing? Is an evidentiary hearing always required before determination of a dissolution petition? The answer is no. Although BCL 1109 requires that the court "shall hear the allegations and proofs of the parties and determine the facts," New York courts have long interpreted that provision to allow a court to make such determination without conducting an evidentiary hearing, where appropriate. CPLR 409(b) directs the Court to "make a summary determination upon the pleadings, papers and admissions to the extent that no triable issues of fact are raised," in determining Article 4 special proceedings governing BCL 1104-a dissolution proceedings. But there also exist numerous appellate authorities remanding a summary grant or denial of dissolution back to the trial court for an evidentiary hearing, just as the Second Department did here, including, for example: Matter of Nicastro v VJN Real Est. Corp., 175 AD 3d 1296 (2d Dept 2019); Matter of WTB Properties, Inc., 291 AD 2d 566 (2d Dept 2002); Matter of Fancy Windows & Doors Mfg. Corp, 244 AD 2d 484 (2d Dept 1997); Matter of Giordano v Stark, 229 AD 2d 493 (2d Dept 1996). The volume of cases going back on remand suggests to me that the question of whether an evidentiary hearing is necessary can be less than clear, even among the judiciary. A word on procedure. On appeal, Anthony emphasized that the trial court struck his request to submit reply papers and then characterized Respondent's evidence as "undisputed." Anthony dedicated a significant portion of his appellate brief to the evidence he would have presented had he been permitted a reply. In New York, reply papers are not permitted on an order to show cause absent express court permission, which is rarely granted. Anthony could (or should) have anticipated that he would not be permitted to submit a reply. His choice not to press the issue until his appeal (which Respondent correctly points out is the first time the issue was raised), was a gamble to say the least. Ultimately, the Second Department's decision rescued Anthony's case - or at least allowed him to live to fight another day. But it calls to mind Peter Mahler's evergreen best-practice exhortation from 2012, which remains good advice today: "If you're a petitioner in a dissolution proceeding you need to load up your petition (or supplemental affidavits) with as many facts as are available in support of your claims."

Berkshire Hathaway (BRK.B) stock: Greg Abel puts $20 billion to work - here's what he bought. Berkshire Hathaway (BRK.B) stock rises as Greg Abel deploys $20B in equities and buybacks, cutting the cash pile for the first time in four years. By Trader Edge August 10, 2026 3 Mins Read Tldr. * Berkshire's cash pile dropped to $364.7 billion, down 4% from its record high of $397.4 billion * Berkshire became a net stock buyer for the first time in 14 quarters, with $20 billion net equity purchases * $10 billion went into Alphabet and $6.8 billion into Taylor Morrison Home * Berkshire repurchased $4.5 billion of its own stock in Q2, plus another $3.3 billion in July * Operating profit rose 16% to $12.98 billion, though GEICO underwriting profits fell 45% Greg Abel's second quarter as Berkshire Hathaway CEO sent a clear message: the waiting is over. Berkshire ended June with $364.7 billion in cash and Treasury bills. That sounds like a lot, and it is. But it marks the first decline in four years, down from a record $397.4 billion in March. The drop came from real spending. Berkshire bought $23.5 billion in equities and sold $3.7 billion, making it a net buyer for the first time in 14 quarters. Its largest net equity outlay since early 2022. That $20 billion net purchase included $10 billion more invested in Alphabet. Berkshire also completed its $6.8 billion acquisition of Taylor Morrison Home during the quarter. Abel's first shareholder letter as CEO stressed patience and discipline. The Q2 numbers suggest he also means action when the price is right. CFRA analyst Cathy Seifert told Reuters that Abel was "slowly, gradually and subtly" asserting himself as Berkshire's new leader. Buybacks signal confidence in Berkshire's own value. One of the loudest signals from the quarter was Berkshire buying itself. The company spent $4.5 billion on buybacks in Q2, a dramatic jump from just $235 million in Q1. Berkshire's policy only allows repurchases when Abel, consulting with Buffett, believes the stock trades below intrinsic value. Berkshire then spent another $3.3 billion in July, bringing total buybacks since April to nearly $8 billion. Gabelli Funds portfolio manager Macrae Sykes told CNBC the buybacks showed management saw "good value for money" in their own stock. Barclays had estimated Q2 buybacks in the $5 to $11 billion range. UBS forecast $8.5 billion. The $4.5 billion came in below both, but still dwarfed Q1. Operating earnings mostly strong, GEICO a weak spot. Operating profit rose 16% to $12.98 billion for the quarter. Berkshire Hathaway Energy jumped 27%. BNSF Railway gained 6%. Manufacturing, service and retail earnings climbed 24% to nearly $4.5 billion. Insurance was the soft spot. Underwriting earnings fell 13% and insurance investment income dropped 9%. GEICO took the hardest hit, with underwriting profits down 45%. After stripping out favorable currency moves, operating earnings grew closer to 6%, according to market data. Berkshire also trimmed its DaVita position just before the dialysis company's stock dropped 23% following a weak Q2 earnings report. The sale was not discretionary. Under a 2024 agreement, DaVita is required to buy back enough Berkshire-held stock each quarter to keep Berkshire's stake at or below 45%. The trim involved just under 183,000 shares, worth $36.5 million at roughly $200 per share based on volume-weighted average pricing. Berkshire's full Q2 portfolio snapshot, which will detail all equity buys and sells, is expected in the coming week.6 Stop guessing and start investing with confidence. KnockoutStocks gives you the AI insights, market intelligence, and stock research you need to spot opportunities, cut through the noise, and make smarter investment decisions - all in one powerful platform. Simply use coupon code SPECIAL50 at checkout to claim your exclusive discount. Limited Time Offer Get 3 free stock ebooks. Discover top-performing stocks in AI, Crypto, and Technology with expert analysis. * Top 10 AI Stocks - Leading AI companies * Top 10 Crypto Stocks - Blockchain leaders * Top 10 Tech Stocks - Tech giants

Tarrant jury awards $39M to Good Samaritan who lost legs in crash on Texas 121. Updated May 20, 2026 6:03 PM Gift Article A Tarrant County jury returned a $39 million verdict last week in a civil case over a car crash that ended with a Good Samaritan losing both of his legs, according to court documents. The plaintiff, David Vaughn, was driving along Texas Highway 121 in Hurst on the night of Aug. 26, 2022, when he found an SUV stopped in his lane of travel, according to the lawsuit. Vaughn steered to avoid the SUV, but clipped the back corner before stopping in front of the vehicle to offer assistance to the driver, Theresa Arrington, the suit stated. After Vaughn got out of his car, a Nissan Sentra driven by another defendant, Bamwesige Kisuuli, entered the scene at a high rate of speed, according to the suit. Kisuuli swerved, over-corrected and lost control of his car as he tried to avoid hitting Arrington's SUV, the suit stated. As a result, Vaughn was struck and pinned between the back bumper of his vehicle and the front bumper of Kisuuli's Nissan Sentra, according to the suit. The impact ripped Vaughn's left leg off, and damaged his right leg to an extent that it was later amputated at the hospital. Kisuuli was intoxicated while speeding in the Sentra, attorneys wrote in the suit. Kisuuli was arrested on a charge of intoxication assault with a vehicle, but a grand jury declined to indict him and the criminal case was dismissed, according to court records. The lawsuit alleged that Arrington was negligent in choosing not to move her car out of the lanes of oncoming traffic, that Kisuuli was negligent in failing to drive sober and adequately control the car. Since the time of the crash, Vaughn has lived with chronic pain and phantom limb pain as well as nerve damage, his attorney, Brian Butcher, said. "The evidence showed that the driver of the car that stalled had ample opportunity to get to a safe place on the shoulder, but chose to come to a rest on the highway," Butcher said. "After she made that decision, the danger was compounded by the fact that instead of calling for emergency help, she chose to sit on the highway for as much as 30 minutes waiting for a friend to get there." The jury's verdict found that both of the defendants shared some of the responsibility for Vaughn's injuries. Attorneys for the defendants could not immediately be reached for comment. Butcher, an attorney with the Fort Worth-area Noteboom Law Firm, will pursue a separate lawsuit against Geico, which provided insurance for the defendants, in an effort to get the insurer to pay the money the jury awarded as damages in the case, he said. "He feels like an enormous weight has been lifted off his shoulders," Butcher said of his client. "The lawsuit has added agony on top of agony for several years." Butcher described his client as "the type of person who would give the shirt off his back to help somebody." "I have no doubt that at the time he was injured, he was trying to help somebody that he saw was exposed to tremendous danger," Butcher said. This story was originally published May 20, 2026 at 5:56 PM. May 20, 2026 4:44 PM Fort Worth May 20, 2026 12:03 PM Fort Worth Star-Telegram Lillie Davidson is a breaking news reporter for the Fort Worth Star-Telegram. She graduated from TCU in 2025 with a bachelor's degree in journalism, is fluent in Spanish, and can complete a crossword in five minutes.