Chapter 60

NOTES OF DECISIONS

In general

Owner of corporate shares that does not meet definition for “shareholder” does not have statutorily crea6ted inspection rights. Yeoman v. Public Safety Center, Inc., 241 Or App 255, 250 P3d 411 (2011)

ATTY. GEN. OPINIONS

Under former similar statutes (ORS chapter 58)

This chapter as authorizing partnership of corporation and individual; validity of partnership between a private corporation and an individual when corporation charter so provides, (1972) Vol 36, p 94

LAW REVIEW CITATIONS

Under former similar statutes (ORS chapter 57)

18 WLR 123 (1982)

In general

24 WLR 203, 257, 275 (1988); 30 WLR 407 (1994)

60.047

LAW REVIEW CITATIONS: 88 OLR 491, 581 (2009)

60.054

NOTES OF DECISIONS

Under former similar statute (ORS 57.793)

Category “persons who assume to act as a corporation,” includes those persons who have investment in organization and who actively participate in policy and operational decisions of organization. Timberline Equip. Co., Inc. v. Davenport, 267 Or 64, 514 P2d 1109 (1973)

Liability for debts of de facto corporation does not apply to make promoter liable for preincorporation agreements. Sherwood & Roberts-Oregon, Inc. v. Alexander, 269 Or 389, 525 P2d 135 (1974)

In general

Person purporting to act for corporation is not liable unless person has actual knowledge, rather than constructive knowledge, that there is no incorporation. Sivers v. R & F Capital Corp., 123 Or App 35, 858 P2d 895 (1993), Sup Ct review denied

60.074

ATTY. GEN. OPINIONS

Under former similar statute (ORS 57.025)

Investor-owned utility solicitation and acceptance of short-term interest-bearing investments directly from ratepayers or other persons, (1982) Vol 43, p 130

60.077

ATTY. GEN. OPINIONS

Under former similar statute (ORS 57.030)

Investor-owned utility solicitation and acceptance of short-term interest-bearing investments directly from ratepayers or other persons, (1982) Vol 43, p 130

60.094

LAW REVIEW CITATIONS

Under former similar statute (ORS 57.045)

14 WLJ 239 (1978); 62 OLR 159 (1983)

60.121

NOTES OF DECISIONS

Under former similar statute (ORS 57.075)

Ability to serve corporate agent is provided as convenience to plaintiff and does not preclude other means of service on corporation. Castro v. Earl Sheib of Oregon, 65 Or App 179, 670 P2d 226 (1983)

60.131

LAW REVIEW CITATIONS: 30 WLR 223 (1994)

60.151

NOTES OF DECISIONS

Under former similar statute (ORS 57.131)

Plaintiff seeking to collect corporate debt from shareholder based on shareholder’s actual control over corporation must prove that plaintiff’s inability to collect from corporation resulted from improper conduct of shareholder. Amfac Foods v. Int’l Systems, 294 Or 94, 654 P2d 1092 (1982)

In general

Controlling shareholder is not entitled to immunity for damage caused by inadequate original capitalization. Klokke Corp. v. Classic Exposition, Inc., 139 Or App 399, 912 P2d 929 (1996), Sup Ct review denied

60.157

LAW REVIEW CITATIONS: 30 WLR 223 (1994)

60.181

NOTES OF DECISIONS

Controlling shareholder is not entitled to immunity for damage where excessive distributions leave corporation inadequately capitalized to meet normal business debts. Klokke Corp. v. Classic Exposition, Inc., 139 Or App 399, 912 P2d 929 (1996), Sup Ct review denied

60.247

NOTES OF DECISIONS

Under former similar statute (ORS 57.165)

Modification of quorum requirement cannot be accomplished by changing bylaws rather than articles of incorporation. Jones v. Wallace, 291 Or 11, 628 P2d 388 (1981)

60.261

NOTES OF DECISIONS

Where purchaser of stock knows or has reason to believe seller has engaged in corporate wrongdoing, purchaser is disqualified from maintaining action for damages. Damerow Ford Co. v. Bradshaw, 128 Or App 606, 876 P2d 788 (1994)

Shareholder who purchased interest representing all other shares of stock was purchaser of entire corporation for purposes of determining ability to maintain action against seller. Damerow Ford Co. v. Bradshaw, 128 Or App 606, 876 P2d 788 (1994)

To excuse failure to make demand, plaintiff must specify facts showing reasonable doubt either: 1) that directors are disinterested and independent for purposes of responding to demand; or 2) that challenged transaction resulted from valid exercise of business judgment. Crandon Capital Partners v. Shelk, 219 Or App 16, 181 P3d 773 (2008), Sup Ct review denied

Complaint allegations that directors have undertaken defensive measures in response to pending or potential bid for control are generally sufficient to defeat motion to dismiss for failure to make demand. Crandon Capital Partners v. Shelk, 219 Or App 16, 181 P3d 773 (2008), Sup Ct review denied

60.357

LAW REVIEW CITATIONS: 30 WLR 223, 347 (1994); 38 WLR 187 (2002); 88 OLR 491, 581 (2009)

60.494

NOTES OF DECISIONS

Where minority shareholders sought preliminary injunction concerning safeguards on sale of corporation to prospective buyer, majority shareholders’ approval of exchange of shares with buyer’s subsidiary rendered motion for preliminary injunction moot. Numrich v. Gleason, 700 F Supp 512 (D. Or. 1988)

60.497

NOTES OF DECISIONS

Under former similar statute (ORS 57.480)

Guaranty to subsidiary corporation survived merger and inured to benefit of surviving corporation where change did not alter guarantor’s risk. Nike, Inc. v. Spencer, 75 Or App 362, 707 P2d 589 (1985), Sup Ct review denied

In general

60.551 to 60.594

NOTES OF DECISIONS

Under former similar statutes (ORS 57.865 to 57.890)

In determining “fair value” of dissenter’s shares under dissenters’ rights statute, application of minority discount was not appropriate. Columbia Management Co. v. Wyss, 94 Or App 195, 765 P2d 207 (1988), Sup Ct review denied

LAW REVIEW CITATIONS

Under former similar statutes (ORS 57.865 to 57.890)

18 WLR 123 (1982)

In general

30 WLR 373 (1994)

60.551

NOTES OF DECISIONS

Fair value appreciation or depreciation in anticipation of corporate action includes all changes in value except that speculative effects of action may not be considered. Stringer v. Car Data Systems, Inc., 314 Or 576, 841 P2d 1183 (1992)

60.591

NOTES OF DECISIONS

Appraising value of shares can be meld of different approaches, and asset value, market value and enterprise value may all be considered, with weight to be determined as circumstances of case may indicate. Chrome Data Systems, Inc. v. Stringer, 109 Or App 513, 820 P2d 831 (1991)

Trial court did not err in treating offer by competitor to buy assets of corporation as floor value for stock, or in setting value of stock above that floor value but below value set by appraiser based on market sales. Chrome Data Systems, Inc. v. Stringer, 109 Or App 513, 820 P2d 831 (1991)

For purposes of appellate review, judicial appraisal proceeding is legal in nature. G.I. Joe’s, Inc. v. Nizam, 183 Or App 116, 50 P3d 1282 (2002)

60.594

NOTES OF DECISIONS

Where allegations show only disagreement as to price, with no allegations permitting any inference of self-dealing, fraud, deliberate waste of corporate assets, misrepresentation, or other unlawful conduct, statutory appraisal is exclusive remedy, even if majority shareholders acted arbitrarily, vexatiously or in bad faith. Stringer v. Car Data Systems, Inc., 314 Or 576, 841 P2d 1183 (1992)

60.661

NOTES OF DECISIONS

Under former similar statute (ORS 57.595)

In suit for oppressive conduct, court may consider equitable remedies as alternative to dissolution of corporation. Baker v. Commercial Body Builders, Inc., 264 Or 614, 507 P2d 387 (1973)

In general

For purposes of appellate review, judicial dissolution proceeding is equitable in nature. G.I. Joe’s, Inc. v. Nizam, 183 Or App 116, 50 P3d 1282 (2002)

LAW REVIEW CITATIONS

In general

71 OLR 631 (1992); 36 WLR 361 (2000)

60.701

ATTY. GEN. OPINIONS

Under former similar statute (ORS 57.655)

Foreign banking association that sells traveler’s checks as foreign corporation, (1973) Vol 36, p 467

60.801 to 60.816

LAW REVIEW CITATIONS: 30 WLR 223 (1994)

60.825 to 60.845

LAW REVIEW CITATIONS: 30 WLR 223 (1994)

60.952

NOTES OF DECISIONS

Court not required to hold hearing on modifying terms of purchase upon receiving petition to modify such terms. Marker v. Marker, 238 Or App 65, 242 P3d 638 (2010)