| Fryar Law Firm, P.C. -- 1001 Texas Ave. -- 14th Floor -- Houston, Texas 77002-3194 Tel. 888-481-9995 281-715-6396 Fax 281-715-6397 Skype: fryarlawfirm ©2010 -- Copyright Fryar Law Firm, P.C. -- All Rights Reserved -- Disclaimer/Terms of Use |
| Protecting the Rights of Business Owners |
| Subscribe to Shareholder Oppression Blog |
| Arizona Shareholder Law Resources |
I. Shareholder Inspection Rights
Shareholders in an Arizona close corporation have the same inspection rights as those in an ordinary Arizona corporation.
See Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 10-1602 (2004). During regular business hours at the corporation’s principal office a shareholder
may, upon written demand at least five days in advance, inspect and copy a limited number of documents pertaining to the
corporation. Id. The items available for inspection and copying under this section are the corporation’s articles of
incorporation, bylaws, resolutions of the board that create classes or series of shares, minutes of shareholders’ meetings and
records of actions taken without a meeting in the previous three years, written communications to shareholders in the
previous three years, names and business addresses of current officers and directors, the corporation’s most recent annual
report and any shareholders’ agreements. § 10-1601(e). A shareholder whose demand is made in good faith and for a
proper purpose and that describes the purpose with particularity may examine additional records that are directly connected
to that purpose. § 10-1602(c). Those records include excerpts from minutes of shareholder and board of directors meetings,
accounting records of the corporation, the record of shareholders and the corporation’s most recent financial statements
“showing in reasonable detail its assets and liability and the results of its operations.” § 10-1602(b). Neither a corporation’s
articles of incorporation nor bylaws may abolish or restrict the shareholders’ right of inspection; however, the corporation may
charge a reasonable fee for the labor and materials expended in complying with the request. § 10-1602(e); § 10-1603(c).
Furthermore, Arizona courts have the authority to order an inspection irrespective of the shareholder’s length or percentage
of ownership upon a showing of proper purpose. Id. If a corporation fails to comply with a properly demanded inspection it is
liable for the shareholder’s costs and attorneys’ fees incurred in enforcing his or her rights. § 10-1604(c). However, the
corporation is not liable for these costs if it can show that the demand was refused “in good faith because it had a reasonable
basis for doubt about the right of the shareholder to inspect the records demanded. § 10-1604(c).
II. Shareholder Oppression
A cause of action for shareholder oppression in close corporations appears to not yet have been addressed by the Arizona
courts; however, there is statutory authority for judicial dissolution of a corporation where the “directors or those in control of
the corporation have acted, are acting or will act in a manner that is illegal, oppressive or fraudulent.” § 10-1430(b)(2).
Furthermore, there appears to be an argument that majority shareholders owe fiduciary duties toward minority shareholders.
See Mims v. Valley Nat. Bank, 481 P.2d 876, 878 (Ariz. 1971). There has been little elaboration on this premise by the
Arizona courts, however, the Court of Appeals of Arizona held in an unpublished opinion that “shareholders that have the
ability to control a corporation owe a fiduciary duty to the corporation and other shareholders.” Sports Imaging of Arizona, L.L.
C. v. 1993 CKC Trust, 2008 WL 4448063.
III. Shareholder Derivative Suits
In order to bring a derivative suit against a corporation, the complaining shareholder must have standing in that he or she was
a shareholder at the time the cause of action accrued or became one by operation of law from a person who was a
shareholder at that time and the complaining shareholder adequately and fairly represents the interests of the corporation. §
10-741. Additionally, a shareholder may not institute a derivative proceeding unless he or she has first made a demand on
the corporation requesting that appropriate action be taken. § 10-742. The complaining shareholder must then wait 90 days
before bringing suit unless he or she is notified earlier by the corporation that the demand has been rejected, the statute of
limitations will expire during the 90 day period or irreparable harm will result. Id.
Derivative proceedings may be stayed by the court during the pendency of an investigation of the claim by the corporation
and the suit may be dismissed on application to the court by the corporation. § 10-743; § 10-744. A derivative proceeding
may not be dismissed or settled without court approval and the court may require shareholder notification where dismissal or
settlement substantially affects shareholder or corporate interests. § 10-745. After the suit has been resolved the court may
order either the corporation or the shareholder to pay the other’s expenses depending on whether the suit resulted in a
benefit to the corporation or was brought without good cause or for an improper purpose respectively. § 10-746.
Whether an exception to the demand requirement exists for close corporations remains unclear; however, current case law
seems to suggest that one does not. See Albers v. Edelson Tech Partners, 31 P.3d 821, 829 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2001).
Furthermore, although the corporation receives any recovery obtained through a derivative suit, there is authority for the
proposition that where the owners of a close corporation operate “more as partners than in strict compliance with the
corporate form,” shareholders have standing to sue both derivatively and directly. Id.
Shareholders in an Arizona close corporation have the same inspection rights as those in an ordinary Arizona corporation.
See Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 10-1602 (2004). During regular business hours at the corporation’s principal office a shareholder
may, upon written demand at least five days in advance, inspect and copy a limited number of documents pertaining to the
corporation. Id. The items available for inspection and copying under this section are the corporation’s articles of
incorporation, bylaws, resolutions of the board that create classes or series of shares, minutes of shareholders’ meetings and
records of actions taken without a meeting in the previous three years, written communications to shareholders in the
previous three years, names and business addresses of current officers and directors, the corporation’s most recent annual
report and any shareholders’ agreements. § 10-1601(e). A shareholder whose demand is made in good faith and for a
proper purpose and that describes the purpose with particularity may examine additional records that are directly connected
to that purpose. § 10-1602(c). Those records include excerpts from minutes of shareholder and board of directors meetings,
accounting records of the corporation, the record of shareholders and the corporation’s most recent financial statements
“showing in reasonable detail its assets and liability and the results of its operations.” § 10-1602(b). Neither a corporation’s
articles of incorporation nor bylaws may abolish or restrict the shareholders’ right of inspection; however, the corporation may
charge a reasonable fee for the labor and materials expended in complying with the request. § 10-1602(e); § 10-1603(c).
Furthermore, Arizona courts have the authority to order an inspection irrespective of the shareholder’s length or percentage
of ownership upon a showing of proper purpose. Id. If a corporation fails to comply with a properly demanded inspection it is
liable for the shareholder’s costs and attorneys’ fees incurred in enforcing his or her rights. § 10-1604(c). However, the
corporation is not liable for these costs if it can show that the demand was refused “in good faith because it had a reasonable
basis for doubt about the right of the shareholder to inspect the records demanded. § 10-1604(c).
II. Shareholder Oppression
A cause of action for shareholder oppression in close corporations appears to not yet have been addressed by the Arizona
courts; however, there is statutory authority for judicial dissolution of a corporation where the “directors or those in control of
the corporation have acted, are acting or will act in a manner that is illegal, oppressive or fraudulent.” § 10-1430(b)(2).
Furthermore, there appears to be an argument that majority shareholders owe fiduciary duties toward minority shareholders.
See Mims v. Valley Nat. Bank, 481 P.2d 876, 878 (Ariz. 1971). There has been little elaboration on this premise by the
Arizona courts, however, the Court of Appeals of Arizona held in an unpublished opinion that “shareholders that have the
ability to control a corporation owe a fiduciary duty to the corporation and other shareholders.” Sports Imaging of Arizona, L.L.
C. v. 1993 CKC Trust, 2008 WL 4448063.
III. Shareholder Derivative Suits
In order to bring a derivative suit against a corporation, the complaining shareholder must have standing in that he or she was
a shareholder at the time the cause of action accrued or became one by operation of law from a person who was a
shareholder at that time and the complaining shareholder adequately and fairly represents the interests of the corporation. §
10-741. Additionally, a shareholder may not institute a derivative proceeding unless he or she has first made a demand on
the corporation requesting that appropriate action be taken. § 10-742. The complaining shareholder must then wait 90 days
before bringing suit unless he or she is notified earlier by the corporation that the demand has been rejected, the statute of
limitations will expire during the 90 day period or irreparable harm will result. Id.
Derivative proceedings may be stayed by the court during the pendency of an investigation of the claim by the corporation
and the suit may be dismissed on application to the court by the corporation. § 10-743; § 10-744. A derivative proceeding
may not be dismissed or settled without court approval and the court may require shareholder notification where dismissal or
settlement substantially affects shareholder or corporate interests. § 10-745. After the suit has been resolved the court may
order either the corporation or the shareholder to pay the other’s expenses depending on whether the suit resulted in a
benefit to the corporation or was brought without good cause or for an improper purpose respectively. § 10-746.
Whether an exception to the demand requirement exists for close corporations remains unclear; however, current case law
seems to suggest that one does not. See Albers v. Edelson Tech Partners, 31 P.3d 821, 829 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2001).
Furthermore, although the corporation receives any recovery obtained through a derivative suit, there is authority for the
proposition that where the owners of a close corporation operate “more as partners than in strict compliance with the
corporate form,” shareholders have standing to sue both derivatively and directly. Id.
Arizona Resources
 | |  | |  | |  | |  |