A. A domestic or foreign corporation may correct a document that has been filed by the commission pursuant to chapters 1 through 17 of this title if the document either:
1. Contains an incorrect statement and the correction does not materially alter a substantive provision.
2. Was defectively executed, attested, verified or acknowledged.
B. A document is corrected by both:
1. Preparing articles of correction that:
(a) Describe the document or attach a copy of it to the articles.
(b) Specify the date the document was delivered to the commission.
(c) Specify the incorrect statement and the reason it is incorrect or the manner in which the execution was defective.
(d) Correct the incorrect statement or other defect.
2. Delivering the articles to the commission for filing.
C. Articles of correction are effective on the effective date of the document they correct except as to persons who rely on the incorrect statement or other defect and who are adversely affected by the correction. As to those persons, articles of correction are effective as provided in section 10-123.
D. If articles of incorporation, articles of domestication or an application for authority to transact business is rejected for filing by the commission, the articles or application may be resubmitted within thirty days after the date of rejection. If the resubmitted articles or application cures the defect that caused the rejection, the resubmitted articles or application shall be filed by the commission and is effective on the date that would have been the effective date of filing the articles or application if the articles or application had not been rejected.
Notes of Decisions
Amfac Elec. Supply Co. v. Rainer Constr. Co., 600 P.2d 26 (Ariz. 1979).
· cites it 6× “One day before trial defendants-appellees filed a motion to dismiss, attaching thereto an affidavit from the Corporation Commission attesting that there was no Amfac Electric Supply Company qualified to do business in Arizona and, appellees asserted, there had been no compliance…”
Mobile Home Estates, Inc. v. Levitt Mobile Home Sys., Inc., 575 P.2d 1245 (Ariz. 1978).
· cites it 2× “Present law provides at A.R.S. § 10-124: “B. The failure of a foreign corporation to obtain authority to transact business in this state shall not impair the validity of any contract or act of such corporation, and shall not prevent such corporation from defending any action,…”
Capin v. S & H Packing Co., Inc., 636 P.2d 1223 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1981).
· cites it 3× “ESTOPPEL It was appellant’s position that it had paid the returned freight billings to TDV by mistake and was therefore entitled to credit these sums against TDV’s final bill.”
Terrell v. Indus. Comm'n, 508 P.2d 355 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1973).
· cites it 4× “required by A.R.S. § 10-124. 3 The hearing officer expressly concluded, and we find this conclusion amply supported by the record, that a bona fide attempt was made to validly organize the corporation, and, that the corporation was operated in good faith and with the belief that…”
Crown Zellerbach Corp. v. Farrell, 716 P.2d 67 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1986).
· cites it 3× “The penalties imposed upon an unauthorized foreign corporation transacting business in Arizona are covered by A.R.S. § 10-124. We find no merit in Crown Zellerbach’s contention that the trial court abused its discretion by granting summary judgment on the day set for trial and…”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 10-124(A) — 2 cases
Amfac Elec. Supply Co. v. Rainer Constr. Co., 600 P.2d 26 (Ariz. 1979).
“One day before trial defendants-appellees filed a motion to dismiss, attaching thereto an affidavit from the Corporation Commission attesting that there was no Amfac Electric Supply Company qualified to do business in Arizona and, appellees asserted, there had been no compliance…”
Capin v. S & H Packing Co., Inc., 636 P.2d 1223 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1981).
“ESTOPPEL It was appellant’s position that it had paid the returned freight billings to TDV by mistake and was therefore entitled to credit these sums against TDV’s final bill.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.