(e) Eliminate the duty of loyalty or the duty of care under s. 605.04091, except as otherwise provided in subsection (4).
(f) Eliminate the obligation of good faith and fair dealing under s. 605.04091, but the operating agreement may prescribe the standards by which the performance of the obligation is to be measured if the standards are not manifestly unreasonable.
(g) Relieve or exonerate a person from liability for conduct involving bad faith, willful or intentional misconduct, or a knowing violation of law.
(h) Unreasonably restrict the duties and rights stated in s. 605.0410, but the operating agreement may impose reasonable restrictions on the availability and use of information obtained under that section and may define appropriate remedies, including liquidated damages, for a breach of a reasonable restriction on use.
(i) Vary the grounds for dissolution specified in s. 605.0702. A deadlock resolution mechanism does not vary the grounds for dissolution for the purposes of this paragraph.
(j) Vary the requirement to wind up the company’s business, activities, and affairs as specified in s. 605.0709(1), (2)(a), and (5).
(k) Unreasonably restrict the right of a member to maintain an action under ss. 605.0801-605.0806.
(l) Vary the provisions of s. 605.0804, but the operating agreement may provide that the company may not appoint a special litigation committee. However, the operating agreement may not prevent a court from appointing a special litigation committee.
(m) Vary the right of a member to approve a merger, interest exchange, or conversion under s. 605.1023(1)(b), s. 605.1033(1)(b), or s. 605.1043(1)(b), respectively.
(n) Vary the required contents of plan of merger under s. 605.1022, a plan of interest exchange under s. 605.1032, a plan of conversion under s. 605.1042, or a plan of domestication under s. 605.1052.
(o) Except as otherwise provided in ss. 605.0106 and 605.0107(2), restrict the rights under this chapter of a person other than a member or manager.
(p) Provide for indemnification for a member or manager under s. 605.0408 for any of the following:
1. Conduct involving bad faith, willful or intentional misconduct, or a knowing violation of law.
2. A transaction from which the member or manager derived an improper personal benefit.
3. A circumstance under which the liability provisions of s. 605.0406 are applicable.
4. A breach of duties or obligations under s. 605.04091, taking into account a restriction, an expansion, or an elimination of such duties and obligations provided for in the operating agreement to the extent allowed by subsection (4).
(4) Subject to paragraph (3)(g), without limiting other terms that may be included in an operating agreement, the following rules apply:
(a) The operating agreement may:
1. Specify the method by which a specific act or transaction that would otherwise violate the duty of loyalty may be authorized or ratified by one or more disinterested and independent persons after full disclosure of all material facts; or
2. Alter the prohibition stated in s. 605.0405(1)(b) so that the prohibition requires solely that the company’s total assets not be less than the sum of its total liabilities.
(b) To the extent the operating agreement of a member-managed limited liability company expressly relieves a member of responsibility that the member would otherwise have under this chapter and imposes the responsibility on one or more other members, the operating agreement may, to the benefit of the member that the operating agreement relieves of the responsibility, also eliminate or limit a duty or obligation that would have pertained to the responsibility.
(c) If not manifestly unreasonable, the operating agreement may:
1. Alter or eliminate the aspects of the duty of loyalty under s. 605.04091(2);
2. Identify specific types or categories of activities that do not violate the duty of loyalty;
3. Alter the duty of care, but may not authorize willful or intentional misconduct or a knowing violation of law; and
4. Alter or eliminate any other fiduciary duty.
(5) The court shall decide as a matter of law whether a term of an operating agreement is manifestly unreasonable under paragraph (3)(f) or paragraph (4)(c). The court:
(a) Shall make its determination as of the time the challenged term became part of the operating agreement and shall consider only circumstances existing at that time; and
(b) May invalidate the term only if, in light of the purposes, activities, and affairs of the limited liability company, it is readily apparent that:
1. The objective of the term is unreasonable; or
2. The term is an unreasonable means to achieve the provision’s objective.
(6) An operating agreement may provide for specific penalties or specified consequences, including those described in s. 605.0403(5), if a member or transferee fails to comply with the terms and conditions of the operating agreement or if other events specified in the operating agreement occur.
Cited 3 times | Published | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal
...limited liability company.
It might appear at first blush that this statute eliminated the exception,
recognized by this court in Camacho, and instead requires the member to plead and
prove both direct harm and special injury. However, upon considering section
605.0105, relating to LLC operating agreements, it is clear that the exception
recognized in Camacho remains viable:
(1) Except as otherwise provided in subsections (3)
and (4), the operating agreement governs the...
...business, activities, and affairs as specified in s.
605.0709(1), (2)(a), and (5).
(k) Unreasonably restrict the right of a member to
maintain an action under ss. 605.0801-605.0806.
(Emphasis added).
Under section 605.0105(2), the statute governs only where the operating
agreement does not otherwise provide for that matter and, under subsection (3)(a),
although an operating agreement may not vary an LLC’s capacity to sue or be
sued, there is no si...
Cited 1 times | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal
...3d DCA 2022).
B
Florida’s Revised Limited Liability Company Act (the “Act”) is codified
in chapter 605, Florida Statutes (2025). The Act clarifies that the operating
agreement is the polestar in determining the rights and obligations of
company members. See § 605.0105, Fla....
...of a person in the capacity of manager,”
but “[r]elations among the members as members and between the members
and the limited liability company,” and “the activities and affairs of the
company and the conduct of those activities and affairs.”
Id. § 605.0105(1)(a), (b), (c).
Absent a contrary statutory provision, we construe an operating
agreement in accord with established contract law....
...care to ASMO, which the jury by its verdict found ASMO had in fact proven,
even if the jury also determined that no damages should be awarded to
ASMO for that breach.
In light of the jury’s determination, the plain language of sections
605.0408, 605.04091, and 605.0105, Florida Statutes (2016) (the Revised
Limited Liability Company Act)7 precluded the trial court from finding in favor
7
As an initial matter, Rodriguez contends that, because ASMO’s underlying
lawsuit was filed in July 2014, and Cha...
...ification.
24
2. The trial court erred in relying upon a provision in the Operating
Agreement to award indemnification to Rodriguez where such a
provision was expressly prohibited by section 605.0105(3), Florida
Statutes.
Rodriguez contends that, notwithstanding this statutory preclusion, the
trial court was within its discretion to grant indemnification pursuant to the
language of ASMO’s Operating Agreement....
...the above provision of the Operating Agreement was erroneous because
Chapter 605 expressly prohibits an operating agreement from providing
indemnification to a manager who has breached a duty of care or loyalty
under section 605.04091.
Further, sections 605.0105(3)(g) & (p) together provide:
An operating agreement may not do any of the following: ....
...A breach of duties or obligations under s.
605.04091, taking into account a restriction, an expansion, or an
elimination of such duties and obligations provided for in the
operating agreement to the extent allowed by subsection (4).
(Emphasis added).
As the plain language of section 605.0105(3) mandates, a manager
who violates any of the above-listed duties is precluded from indemnification,
and such statutory preclusion cannot be altered, modified or waived by the
26
Operating Agreement....
...B.J., November 2013, at 47, 49 (“The
prohibition of indemnification for such wrongful conduct cannot be changed
by the operating agreement, nor can the operating agreement limit a
person's liability to the LLC if his or her wrongful conduct causes damages
(both are nonwaivable under F.S. §§ 605.0105(3) (g) & (p))”)....
This Florida statute resource is curated by Graham W. Syfert, Esq., a Jacksonville, Florida personal injury and workers' compensation attorney. For legal consultation, call 904-383-7448.
