O.C.G.A.

O.C.G.A. § 14-2-901 (2019)

Application of Business Corporation Code and Professional Corporation Act

✓ O.C.G.A. — 2019 edition (Public.Resource.Org Release 73)
Code text and O.C.G.A. statutory annotations on this page reflect the 2019 Official Code of Georgia Annotated (Public.Resource.Org Release 73, 2019-08-21; public domain per Georgia v. Public.Resource.Org, 2020). The Syfert case-law annotations in Notes of Decisions, below, are current.
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section GA-LEGlegis.ga.gov (official) JustiaJustia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) This chapter applies to statutory close corporations to the extent not inconsistent with the provisions of this article.

(b) This article applies to a professional corporation organized under Chapter 7 of this title, known as the ‘‘Georgia Professional Corporation Act,’’ whose articles of incorporation contain the statement required by Code Section 14-7-3, except insofar as the ‘‘Georgia Professional Corporation Act’’ contains inconsistent provisions, if such professional corporation’s articles of incorporation also contain the statement required by subsection (a) of Code Section 14-2-902.

(c) This article does not repeal or modify any statute or rule of law that is or would apply to a corporation that is organized under this chapter or Chapter 7 of this title, known as the ‘‘Georgia Professional Corporation Act’’ and that does not elect to become a statutory close corporation under Code Section 14-2-902.

History

(Code 1981, § 14-2-901, enacted by Ga. L. 1988, p. 1070, § 1; Ga. L. 1995, p. 482, § 6.)

Annotations

COMMENT Source: Model Statutory Close Corporation Supplement, § 2. There was no comparable comprehensive set of provisions in former Georgia law. Previously § 14-2-120(b) expressly validated shareholders’ agreements that varied the form of management of the corporation (much as Code § 14-2-731(c) does), and § 14-2-141(a) permitted the board of directors to consist of one or two persons, rather than three, under specified conditions. Former § 14-2-142 permitted the court to appoint provisional directors. Provisions in the Georgia Business Corporation Code apply to all statutory close corporations except to the extent they are not consistent with the provisions in this article. Whenever this article is silent on an issue, the corresponding provision of the remainder of the Code applies. One provision of the Code only becomes applicable upon election of statutory close corporation status. Section 14-2-627 provides that corporations formed under the Code do not have preemptive rights unless they elect them in their articles of

incorporation. However, under Section 14-2-627(b) election of statutory close corporation status is treated as an election of preemptive rights, unless they are denied in the articles of incorporation. Under subsection (b) the provisions of this article apply to all professional corporations that elect to be statutory close corporations. Subsection (c) is derived from section 356 of the Delaware Corporation Law, and makes clear that enactment of this article does not affect the law applicable to corporations, including closely held corporations, that are not statutory close corporations. Election of statutory close corporation status is not intended to provide the exclusive means of varying the corporate form, where authority to do so exists under other provisions of the Code, or has previously been a normal incident of Georgia corporations. This article has independent legal significance, as does each other provision of the Code. See Zion v. Kurtz, 50 N.Y.2d 92, 405 N.E.2d 681 (Ct. App. 1980) (applying Delaware law), for a judicial approach consistent with the intent of this article. The Code departs from the Model Close Corporation Supplement in Sections 14-2-731(c) and 801(a) to make clear that the flexibility provided by election of statutory close corporation status can effectively be obtained by provisions in articles of incorporation, bylaws or shareholder agreements, provided all shareholders approve in writing, and provided the corporation’s shares are not regularly traded in public securities markets. Cross-References Election of statutory close corporation status, see § 14-2-902. Business Corporation Code definitions, see § 14-2-140. Shareholders’ agreements to vary management of the corporation, see §§ 14-2-731 and 14-2-801.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 4 cases, 2000–2006 · leading case: Stoker v. Bellemeade, LLC, 615 S.E.2d 1 (Ga. Ct. App. 2005).
Stoker v. Bellemeade, LLC, 615 S.E.2d 1 (Ga. Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 20× “2d 814 limited the direct action exception in the context of close corporations to situations where the evidence shows the corporation was a "statutory close corporation" created pursuant to OCGA § 14-2-901 et seq. They argue that, because the LLCs at issue are not statutory…”
Cook v. Reg'l Commc'ns, Inc., 539 S.E.2d 171 (Ga. Ct. App. 2000). · cites it 2× “The record shows that Regional Communications was incorporated in July 1997 as a close corporation under OCGA §§ 14-2-901 through 14-2-943. Cook and Michael Jackson were the sole shareholders, with each holding 50 percent of the stock.”
Haskins v. Haskins, 629 S.E.2d 504 (Ga. Ct. App. 2006). · cites it 2× “772 [( 301 SE2d 49 ) (1983)], are present, even though the corporation was not created pursuant to OCGA § 14-2-901 etseq.”Id. Nevertheless, a correct decision of a trial court will not be reversed, regardless of the reasons stated.”
Telcom Cost Consulting, Inc. v. Warren, 621 S.E.2d 864 (Ga. Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 2× “], are present, even though the corporation was not created pursuant to OCGA § 14-2-901 et seq.” 17 Stoker is apposite and controlling, and we decline plaintiffs’ invitation to overrule it.”
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.