Arizona Revised Statutes

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 10-1325 (2026)

Payment

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section AZ-LEGazleg.gov (official) JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

A. Except as provided in section 10-1327, as soon as the proposed corporate action is taken, or if such action is taken without a shareholder vote, on receipt of a payment demand, the corporation shall pay each dissenter who complied with section 10-1323 the amount the corporation estimates to be the fair value of the dissenter's shares plus accrued interest.

B. The payment shall be accompanied by all of the following:

1. The corporation's balance sheet as of the end of a fiscal year ending not more than sixteen months before the date of payment, an income statement for that year, a statement of changes in shareholders' equity for that year and the latest available interim financial statements, if any.

2. A statement of the corporation's estimate of the fair value of the shares.

3. An explanation of how the interest was calculated.

4. A statement of the dissenter's right to demand payment under section 10-1328.

5. A copy of this article.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 2 cases, 2003–2015 · leading case: Schickner v. Schickner, 348 P.3d 890 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2015).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Schickner v. Schickner, 348 P.3d 890 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2015). · cites it 2× “3d at 291 ; see also A.R.S. §§ 10-1325(A), -1301. Because the division of community assets in a marital dissolution proceeding is governed by an equitable division principle (a different standard), Pro Finish is inapposite.”

Pro Finish USA, Ltd. v. Johnson, 63 P.3d 288 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2003). · cites it 4× “A.R.S. §§ 10-1325(A) (1996) [8] ; 10-1330(A).”

— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 10-1325(A) — 2 cases

Schickner v. Schickner, 348 P.3d 890 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2015). “3d at 291 ; see also A.R.S. §§ 10-1325(A), -1301. Because the division of community assets in a marital dissolution proceeding is governed by an equitable division principle (a different standard), Pro Finish is inapposite.”

Pro Finish USA, Ltd. v. Johnson, 63 P.3d 288 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2003). “A.R.S. §§ 10-1325(A) (1996) [8] ; 10-1330(A).”

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.