Sec. 8. (a) A shareholder is entitled to dissent from,
and obtain payment of the fair value of the shareholder's shares in the
event of, any of the following corporate actions:
(1) Consummation of a plan of merger to which the corporation
is a party if:
(A) shareholder approval is required for the merger by IC 23-1-40, IC 23-0.6-1-7, or the articles of incorporation; and
(B) the shareholder is entitled to vote on the merger.
(2) Consummation of a plan of share exchange to which the
corporation is a party as the corporation whose shares will be
acquired, if the shareholder is entitled to vote on the plan.
(3) Consummation of a sale or exchange of all, or substantially
all, of the property of the corporation other than in the usual and
regular course of business, if the shareholder is entitled to vote on
the sale or exchange, including a sale in dissolution, but not
including a sale pursuant to court order or a sale for cash pursuant
to a plan by which all or substantially all of the net proceeds of
the sale will be distributed to the shareholders within one (1) year
after the date of sale.
(4) The approval of a control share acquisition under IC 23-1-42.
(5) Any corporate action taken pursuant to a shareholder vote to
the extent the articles of incorporation, bylaws, or a resolution of
the board of directors provides that voting or nonvoting
shareholders are entitled to dissent and obtain payment for their
shares.
(6) Election to become a benefit corporation under IC 23-1.3-3-2.
(b) This section does not apply to the holders of shares of any class
or series if, on the date fixed to determine the shareholders entitled to
receive notice of and vote at the meeting of shareholders at which the
merger, plan of share exchange, or sale or exchange of property is to be
acted on, the shares of that class or series were a covered security under
Section 18(b)(1)(A) or 18(b)(1)(B) of the Securities Act of 1933, as
amended.
(c) The articles of incorporation as originally filed or any
amendment to the articles of incorporation may limit or eliminate the
right to dissent and obtain payment for any class or series of preferred
shares. However, any limitation or elimination contained in an
amendment to the articles of incorporation that limits or eliminates the
right to dissent and obtain payment for any shares:
(1) that are outstanding immediately before the effective date of
the amendment; or
(2) that the corporation is or may be required to issue or sell after
the effective date of the amendment under any exchange or other
right existing immediately before the effective date of the
amendment;
does not apply to any corporate action that becomes effective within
one (1) year of the effective date of the amendment if the action would
otherwise afford the right to dissent and obtain payment.
(d) A shareholder:
(1) who is entitled to dissent and obtain payment for the
shareholder's shares under this chapter; or
(2) who would be so entitled to dissent and obtain payment but for
the provisions of subsection (b);
may not challenge the corporate action creating (or that, but for the
provisions of subsection (b), would have created) the shareholder's
entitlement.
(e) Subsection (d) does not apply to a corporate action that was
approved by less than unanimous consent of the voting shareholders
under IC 23-1-29-4 if both of the following apply:
(1) The challenge to the corporate action is brought by a
shareholder who did not consent and as to whom notice of the
approval of the corporate action was not effective at least ten (10)
days before the corporate action was effected.
(2) The proceeding challenging the corporate action is
commenced not later than ten (10) days after notice of the
approval of the corporate action is effective as to the shareholder
bringing the proceeding.
As added by P.L.149-1986, SEC.28. Amended by P.L.107-1987,
SEC.19; P.L.133-2009, SEC.39; P.L.119-2015, SEC.16; P.L.93-2015,
SEC.2; P.L.149-2016, SEC.68; P.L.118-2017, SEC.20.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
18
cases (
3 in the last 5 years), 1993–2026 · leading case:
Galligan v. Galligan, 741 N.E.2d 1217 (Ind. 2001).
Galligan v. Galligan, 741 N.E.2d 1217 (Ind. 2001).
· cites it 24× “" Ind.Code § 23-1-44-8 (1998). Indiana Code section 23-1-41-2 requires that, in order for an asset sale to be authorized, "the board of directors must recommend the proposed transaction to the shareholders.”
McIntosh v. Melroe Co., 729 N.E.2d 972 (Ind. 2000).
· cites it 4× “The general business corporation law provides appraisal rights to dissenting shareholders who believe a merger does not adequately value their shares as long as the shares are not listed on a national exchange or traded on NASDAQ.”
Shepard v. Meridian Ins. Grp., Inc., 137 F. Supp. 2d 1096 (S.D. Ind. 2001).
· cites it 6× “Ind.Code § 23-1-44-8. If the corporation and the dissenting shareholder are unable to agree on a value for the shares, the chapter requires the corporation to file a judicial appraisal proceeding in which the court determines “fair value.”
Young v. Gen. Acceptance Corp., 738 N.E.2d 1079 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000).
· cites it 6× “Official Comments to Ind.Code § 23-1-44-8. The court in Fleming went on to hold that a dissenting shareholder’s breach of fiduciary duty or fraud claims must be litigated within the appraisal proceeding: the “legislature meant to limit a dissenting shareholder seeking payment…”
Lees Inns of Am., Inc. v. William R. Lee Irrevocable Trust, 924 N.E.2d 143 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010).
· cites it 3× “In light of the provisions set forth in Indiana Code section 23-1-44-8, Lees Inns maintains that the trial court's adoption of the Deloitte report as a basis for the judgment was erroneous as a matter of law because that valuation was based, in part, on the assumption that Lees…”
Fleming v. Int'l Pizza Supply Corp., 676 N.E.2d 1051 (Ind. 1997).
· cites it 2× “Official Comments to Ind.Code § 23-1-44-8 (West 1989). II In the case before us, Fleming seeks to be paid for the appraised value of his shares under Ind.”
G & N Aircraft, Inc. v. Boehm, 703 N.E.2d 665 (Ind. Ct. App. 1998).
· cites it 5× “I.C. § 23-1-44-8. While Goldsmith urges that this statute precludes the remedy crafted by the trial court, the judge acknowledged that the instant ease did not involve a “merger or asset sale, with the exclusive remedy available .”
Stone v. Peoples Trust & Sav. Bank, 363 F. Supp. 2d 1036 (S.D. Ind. 2005).
· cites it 4× “Ind.Code § 23-1-44-8 (emphasis added). Because this more recent Indiana legislation expresses the intent that dissenting shareholders in a corporate merger situation receive value exclusive of the application of market discounts, this court is comfortable that the legislature…”
Galligan v. Galligan, 712 N.E.2d 1028 (Ind. Ct. App. 1999).
· cites it 8× “In response to the notice, and for the apparent purpose of protecting their dissenters’ rights under Ind.Code § 23-1-44-8, Plaintiffs and the fourth minority shareholder 2 served a “Shareholders’ Notice Asserting Dissenters Rights” wherein they objected to the proposed…”
Long v. Biomet, Inc., 901 N.E.2d 37 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009).
· cites it 2× “5 *42 Fleming II further noted the omission from the BCL of certain language found in the model act; and the legislature's publication with the BCL of the "Official Comments to the BCL,"-comments specificalty explaining that Indiana Code section 23-1-44-8(c).”
Joseph Hipps & Eugene Protz v. Biglari Holdings, Inc., Sardar Biglari, Philip L. Cooley, Ruth J. Person, Kenneth R. Cooper, James P. Mastrian, BH Merger Co., & NBHSA, Inc. (Ind. Ct. App. 2019).
· cites it 14× “7 Indiana Code Section 23-1-44-8 was amended effective January 1, 2018, to insert “IC 23-0.”
— Ind. Code § 23-1-44-8(A)(1) — 1 case
Lees Inns of Am., Inc. v. William R. Lee Irrevocable Trust, 924 N.E.2d 143 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010).
“In light of the provisions set forth in Indiana Code section 23-1-44-8, Lees Inns maintains that the trial court's adoption of the Deloitte report as a basis for the judgment was erroneous as a matter of law because that valuation was based, in part, on the assumption that Lees…”
— Ind. Code § 23-1-44-8(a) — 1 case
Joseph Hipps & Eugene Protz v. Biglari Holdings, Inc., Sardar Biglari, Philip L. Cooley, Ruth J. Person, Kenneth R. Cooper, James P. Mastrian, BH Merger Co., & NBHSA, Inc. (Ind. Ct. App. 2019).
“7 Indiana Code Section 23-1-44-8 was amended effective January 1, 2018, to insert “IC 23-0.”
— Ind. Code § 23-1-44-8(a)(1) — 2 cases
Young v. Gen. Acceptance Corp., 738 N.E.2d 1079 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000).
“Official Comments to Ind.Code § 23-1-44-8. The court in Fleming went on to hold that a dissenting shareholder’s breach of fiduciary duty or fraud claims must be litigated within the appraisal proceeding: the “legislature meant to limit a dissenting shareholder seeking payment…”
— Ind. Code § 23-1-44-8(b) — 1 case
Joseph Hipps & Eugene Protz v. Biglari Holdings, Inc., Sardar Biglari, Philip L. Cooley, Ruth J. Person, Kenneth R. Cooper, James P. Mastrian, BH Merger Co., & NBHSA, Inc. (Ind. Ct. App. 2019).
“7 Indiana Code Section 23-1-44-8 was amended effective January 1, 2018, to insert “IC 23-0.”
— Ind. Code § 23-1-44-8(c) — 3 cases
Galligan v. Galligan, 741 N.E.2d 1217 (Ind. 2001).
“" Ind.Code § 23-1-44-8 (1998). Indiana Code section 23-1-41-2 requires that, in order for an asset sale to be authorized, "the board of directors must recommend the proposed transaction to the shareholders.”
Long v. Biomet, Inc., 901 N.E.2d 37 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009).
“5 *42 Fleming II further noted the omission from the BCL of certain language found in the model act; and the legislature's publication with the BCL of the "Official Comments to the BCL,"-comments specificalty explaining that Indiana Code section 23-1-44-8(c).”
— Ind. Code § 23-1-44-8(d) — 1 case
Joseph Hipps & Eugene Protz v. Biglari Holdings, Inc., Sardar Biglari, Philip L. Cooley, Ruth J. Person, Kenneth R. Cooper, James P. Mastrian, BH Merger Co., & NBHSA, Inc. (Ind. Ct. App. 2019).
“7 Indiana Code Section 23-1-44-8 was amended effective January 1, 2018, to insert “IC 23-0.”
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.