More Shareholder Oppression
A recent unpublished decision on dissolution and shareholder injury revisits the Supreme Court’s decision in Notz. In Altergott v. Helene Altergott Family Corporation, 2008 AP1944 (June 16, 2009), the District 3 court of appeals cited Notz in its holding that the primary injury was to the corporation, rather than to the plaintiff shareholder.
[O]ur definition of oppressive conduct “requires that those in control of a corporation willfully treated some of the shareholders in a wrongful manner to which other shareholders were not subjected.”
Step one in bringing (or defending) a shareholder oppression/dissolution claim must be to identify the primary injury and the injured.
