Streck, Inc. v. Ryan Family, 297 Neb. 773

Streck, Inc. sued Ryan Family, L.L.C. (LLC) seeking specific performance of an option to purchase leased real property, alleging the LLC breached the lease by failing to close after Streck properly exercised the option.
The LLC is member-owned (six Ryan family members); management authority is vested in two co-managers (Wayne and Connie Ryan) under the LLC operating agreement.
Co-managers disagreed about litigation strategy; they jointly requested and the court appointed a receiver to represent the LLC in the lawsuit; the receiver answered and counterclaimed that Streck was in default when it attempted to exercise the option.
Stacy Ryan (a ~20% nonmanaging member) filed a Complaint in Intervention asserting she should be allowed to intervene on her own behalf and derivatively on behalf of the LLC, alleging the receiver and managers had not fully protected the LLC’s interests.
The district court denied Ryan’s motion to intervene and to continue the summary judgment proceedings; Ryan appealed the denial of intervention. The Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Ryan)	Defendant's Argument (Streck/LLC)	Held
Whether denial of intervention is appealable	Ryan implied appealable	Streck argued §25-1315 alters final-order rule	Court held denial of intervention is a final, appealable order; §25-1315 does not displace precedent
Whether Ryan may intervene in her individual capacity	Ryan: as a 20% member she will gain/lose financially and thus has a direct legal interest	Opposing parties: membership only gives indirect financial interest; managers control company decisions	Court held no; mere prospective reduction in distributions is an indirect interest insufficient for individual intervention
Whether Ryan may intervene derivatively/on behalf of the LLC	Ryan: LLC’s sole asset is at risk; receiver/ managers failing to protect interests justifies intervention on LLC’s behalf	Opponents: derivative rights governed by LLC Act; derivative procedure exists; receiver represents LLC; no showing of total failure to protect LLC	Court held no; Ryan did not plead the narrow Holmes exception (complete failure to protect) nor follow derivative-action requirements
Whether Ryan could expand litigation scope (challenge receiver or managers) via intervention	Ryan sought to challenge receiver appointment and manager conduct	Opponents: intervention must concern same core issues between original parties (lease/option)	Court held such claims fall outside the suit’s core issue and cannot justify intervention

Ruzicka v. Ruzicka, 262 Neb. 824 (2001) (intervention issues reviewed as questions of law and appealability principles)
Trainum v. Sutherland Assocs., 263 Neb. 778 (2002) (procedural jurisdiction and final order discussion)
Basin Elec. Power Co-op v. Little Blue N.R.D., 219 Neb. 372 (1985) (order denying intervention is final for appeal purposes)
Spear T Ranch v. Knaub, 271 Neb. 578 (2006) (standing/intervention standards and interest requirement under §25-328)
Steinhausen v. HomeServices of Neb., 289 Neb. 927 (2015) (members cannot assert company claims in their individual capacity; derivative nature of company claims)
State v. Holmes, 60 Neb. 39 (1900) (narrow exception allowing shareholder intervention where corporation wholly fails to protect shareholder interests)
Freedom Fin. Group v. Woolley, 280 Neb. 825 (2010) (distinguishing duties owed to company versus individual members/shareholders)
Kirchner v. Gast, 169 Neb. 404 (1959) (indirect or conjectural interest insufficient for intervention)