Ariz. Rev. Stat. » Title 10
Arizona Revised Statutes

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 10-742 (2026)

Demand

✓ text as last checked Oct. 2026 (this copy records no edition or section history)
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section AZ-LEGazleg.gov (official) JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

No shareholder may commence a derivative proceeding until both:

1. A written demand has been made on the corporation to take suitable action.

2. Ninety days have expired from the date the demand was made unless the shareholder has earlier been notified that the demand has been rejected by the corporation or unless the statute of limitations will expire within the ninety days or unless irreparable injury to the corporation would result by waiting for the expiration of the ninety day period.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 8 cases, 2001–2015 · leading case: Albers v. Edelson Tech. Partners L.P., 31 P.3d 821 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2001).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Albers v. Edelson Tech. Partners L.P., 31 P.3d 821 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2001). · cites it 10× “A.R.S. § 10-742 (1996). ¶ 32 Appellants did not make such a demand before filing suit.”
Werbowsky v. Collomb, 766 A.2d 123 (Md. 2001). “See Ariz.Rev.Stat.Ann. § 10-742; Conn.Bus.Corp.”
Biltmore Assocs., LLC v. Twin City Fire Ins., 572 F.3d 663 (9th Cir. 2009). “If the debtor in possession refuses, the creditor ■ "may appear and be heard” on the issue in the bankruptcy proceeding.”
AEA Fed. Credit Union v. Yuma Funding, Inc., 346 P.3d 991 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2015). · cites it 2× “§ 10-741 (addressing standing of shareholder to bring derivative action); A.R.S. § 10-742 (requiring demand on corporation prior to bringing derivative action); see also Ariz.”
Rose Goodyear Props., LLC v. NBA Enter. Ltd. P'ship, 332 P.3d 86 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 2× “See A.R.S. § 10-742(1) (A shareholder cannot commence a derivative action until "[a] written demand has been made on the corporation to take suitable action.”
Ritter v. Dollens, 841 N.E.2d 571 (Ind. 2006). “Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 10-742 (1996); Haw.”
Az Eufora v. Constantine, No. 1 CA-CV 11-0467 (Ariz. Ct. App. Apr. 16, 2015). · cites it 2× “2001) (noting A.R.S. § 10-742, which contains a demand requirement in a different context but no express futility exception, “is clear and admits of no exception.”
Biltmore Assocs. v. Twin Cities, No. 06-16417 (9th Cir. July 10, 2009). “Rev. Stat. Ann. § 10-742 (2004); see also Fed.”
Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 10-742(1): 1 case
Rose Goodyear Props., LLC v. NBA Enter. Ltd. P'ship, 332 P.3d 86 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2014). “See A.R.S. § 10-742(1) (A shareholder cannot commence a derivative action until "[a] written demand has been made on the corporation to take suitable action.”
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.