ILCS » Chapter 805 · Act 5
Illinois Compiled Statutes

805 ILCS 5/11.60 (2026)

Sale, lease or exchange of assets, other than in usual and regular course of business

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section IL-ILGAilga.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(805 ILCS 5/11.60) (from Ch. 32, par. 11.60)
    Sec. 11.60. Sale, lease or exchange of assets, other than in usual and regular course of business. A sale, lease, exchange, or other disposition of all, or substantially all, the property and assets, with or without the good will, of a corporation, if not made in the usual and regular course of its business, may be made upon such terms and conditions and for such consideration, which may consist, in whole or in part, of money or property, real or personal, including shares of any other corporation, domestic or foreign, as may be authorized in the following manner:
    (a) The board of directors shall adopt a resolution recommending such sale, lease, exchange, or other disposition and directing the submission thereof to a vote at a meeting of shareholders, which may be either an annual or a special meeting.
    (b) Written notice stating that the purpose, or one of the purposes, of such meeting is to consider the sale, lease, exchange, or other disposition of all, or substantially all, the property and assets of the corporation shall be given to each shareholder of record within the time and in the manner provided by this Act for the giving of notice of meetings of shareholders and shall also inform the shareholders of their right to dissent and either enclose a copy of Section 11.70 or otherwise provide adequate notice of the procedure to dissent. If such meeting be an annual meeting, such purpose may be included in the notice of such annual meeting.
    (c) At such meeting the shareholders entitled to vote on such matter may authorize such sale, lease, exchange, or other disposition and fix, or may authorize the board of directors to fix, any or all of the terms and conditions thereof and the consideration to be received by the corporation therefor. Such authorization shall require the affirmative vote of the holders of at least two-thirds of the outstanding shares entitled to vote on such matter unless any class or series of shares is entitled to vote as a class in respect thereof, in which event such authorization shall require the affirmative vote of the holders of at least two-thirds of the outstanding shares of each class or series of shares entitled to vote as a class on such matter, and of the total outstanding shares entitled to vote on such matter.
    (d) After such authorization by a vote of shareholders, the board of directors nevertheless, in its discretion, may abandon such sale, lease, exchange, or other disposition of assets, subject to the rights of third parties under any contracts relating thereto, without further action or approval by shareholders.
    (e) The articles of incorporation of a corporation may supersede the two-thirds vote requirement of this Section by specifying any smaller or larger vote requirement, not less than a majority of the outstanding shares entitled to vote on the matter and not less than a majority of the outstanding shares of each class of shares entitled to vote as a class on the matter.
(Source: P.A. 83-1025.)

    
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 3 cases, 2009–2010 · leading case: Fritzsche v. Laplante, 927 N.E.2d 218 (Ill. App. Ct. 2010).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Fritzsche v. Laplante, 927 N.E.2d 218 (Ill. App. Ct. 2010). · cites it 3× “Plaintiffs then alleged that Christine violated provisions of the Business Corporation Act of 1983 (Act) (805 ILCS 5/11.60, 11.65, 11.70 (West 2006)) when, without authorization by the Board and without written notice to the shareholders, she entered into a lease that involved…”
Brynwood Co. v. Schweisberger, 913 N.E.2d 150 (Ill. App. Ct. 2009). “See 805 ILCS 5/11.60(c), (e) (West 2002). While no one disputes Schweisberger’s right to dissent from the corporate action here and to be paid fair value for his shares, there is nothing regarding the relationship between these parties or the details of the transaction with Lipe…”
Fritzsche v. LaPlante (Ill. App. Ct. 2010). · cites it 3× “Plaintiffs then alleged that Christine violated provisions of the Business Corporation Act of 1983 (Act) (805 ILCS 5/11.60, 11.65, 11.70 (West 2006)) when, without authorization by the Board and without written notice to the shareholders, she entered into a lease that involved…”
— 805 ILCS 5/11.60(a) — 2 cases
Fritzsche v. Laplante, 927 N.E.2d 218 (Ill. App. Ct. 2010). “Plaintiffs then alleged that Christine violated provisions of the Business Corporation Act of 1983 (Act) (805 ILCS 5/11.60, 11.65, 11.70 (West 2006)) when, without authorization by the Board and without written notice to the shareholders, she entered into a lease that involved…”
Fritzsche v. LaPlante (Ill. App. Ct. 2010). “Plaintiffs then alleged that Christine violated provisions of the Business Corporation Act of 1983 (Act) (805 ILCS 5/11.60, 11.65, 11.70 (West 2006)) when, without authorization by the Board and without written notice to the shareholders, she entered into a lease that involved…”
— 805 ILCS 5/11.60(b) — 2 cases
Fritzsche v. Laplante, 927 N.E.2d 218 (Ill. App. Ct. 2010). “Plaintiffs then alleged that Christine violated provisions of the Business Corporation Act of 1983 (Act) (805 ILCS 5/11.60, 11.65, 11.70 (West 2006)) when, without authorization by the Board and without written notice to the shareholders, she entered into a lease that involved…”
Fritzsche v. LaPlante (Ill. App. Ct. 2010). “Plaintiffs then alleged that Christine violated provisions of the Business Corporation Act of 1983 (Act) (805 ILCS 5/11.60, 11.65, 11.70 (West 2006)) when, without authorization by the Board and without written notice to the shareholders, she entered into a lease that involved…”
— 805 ILCS 5/11.60(c) — 1 case
Brynwood Co. v. Schweisberger, 913 N.E.2d 150 (Ill. App. Ct. 2009). “See 805 ILCS 5/11.60(c), (e) (West 2002). While no one disputes Schweisberger’s right to dissent from the corporate action here and to be paid fair value for his shares, there is nothing regarding the relationship between these parties or the details of the transaction with Lipe…”
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.