Mich. Comp. Laws » Michigan Compiled Laws / Chapter 450 / Act 284 of 1972

Mich. Comp. Laws § 450.1493a

Commencement of derivative proceeding by shareholder; criteria.

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MI-LEGlegislature.mi.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

BUSINESS CORPORATION ACT


Act 284 of 1972


450.1493a Commencement of derivative proceeding by shareholder; criteria.

Sec. 493a.

    A shareholder may not commence a derivative proceeding until all of the following have occurred:

    (a) A written demand has been made upon the corporation to take suitable action.

    (b) 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 irreparable injury to the corporation would result by waiting for the expiration of the 90-day period.

History: Add. 1989, Act 121, Eff. Oct. 1, 1989

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 15 cases (5 in the last 5 years), 1997–2024 · leading case: Werbowsky v. Collomb
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Werbowsky v. Collomb (2001) md “13A § 630; Mich.Comp.Laws Ann. § 450.1493a; Miss.Code Ann.”
Virginia M. Damon Trust v. North Country Financial Corp. (2004) miwd · cites it 3× “§ 450.1493a. 3 A commentator explains Michigan’s mandatory demand rule in the following-manner: The 1989 Amendments make demand on the corporation mandatory prior to the initiation of any derivative suit but authorize the filing of suit upon the corporation’s rejection of…”
Boland v. Engle (1997) ca7 “§ 14-2-742; Mich.Comp.Laws § 450.1493a; Miss.Code Ann.”
Peter Karmanos Jr v. Gurminder S Bedi (2018) michctapp · cites it 16× “The trial court determined that plaintiffs did not have standing, reasoning that Karmanos was not a shareholder at the times relevant to the claims in this case, and that the minor plaintiffs had failed to comply with the statutory requirement of submitting a written demand…”
Huron City Company v. Charles Abram Parcells III (2018) michctapp · cites it 6× “Specifically, plaintiff asserted that defendants did not state in their pleadings that they complied with, and in fact failed to comply with, the requirements of MCL 450.1493a, which required defendants to file a written demand to plaintiff to take “suitable action” and then…”
Huron City Company v. Charles Abram Parcells III (2018) michctapp · cites it 6× “Specifically, plaintiff asserted that defendants did not state in their pleadings that they complied with, and in fact failed to comply with, the requirements of MCL 450.1493a, which required defendants to file a written demand to plaintiff to take “suitable action” and then…”
Simon Property Group, Inc. v. Taubman Centers, Inc. (2003) mied · cites it 2× “MCL 450.1493a(a). A filing may be made before the expiration of the 90 day period if the shareholder receives notice that his/her demand has been rejected or if the corporation would suffer irreparable injury if forced to wait for the period to expire.”
Msc 345758 Leslie J Murphy V Samuel M Inman Iii Supremecourtopinion 4/5/2022 (2022) mich · cites it 4× “Defendants moved for summary disposition, arguing that plaintiff lacked standing because his claim was derivative in nature and he did not satisfy the requirements for bringing a derivative shareholder action under MCL 450.1493a. Plaintiff responded that he was permitted to…”
Leslie J Murphy v. Samuel M Inman III (2022) mich · cites it 4× “Defendants moved for summary disposition, arguing that plaintiff lacked standing because his claim was derivative in nature and he did not satisfy the requirements for bringing a derivative shareholder action under MCL 450.1493a. Plaintiff responded that he was permitted to…”
Leslie J Murphy v. Samuel M Inman III (2020) michctapp · cites it 2× “The trial court determined that plaintiff’s claim was derivative and thus could not be brought in his individual capacity or derivatively, as he failed to comply with MCL 450.1493a. This appeal follows. II. DISCUSSION On appeal, plaintiff argues he has standing to bring a direct…”
HPIL Holding, Inc. v. Haining Zhang (2024) mied · cites it 2× “LAWS § 450.1493a), PageID.1398–99 (“[I]t’s a harsh reality, but that’s it.”
John R Vidolich II v. Saline Northview Condominium Association (2017) michctapp “In contrast, MCL 450.1493a does explicitly require a written demand by a shareholder “to take suitable action” as a prerequisite to a derivative action under the Business Corporation Act; the Legislature could have imposed such a requirement but did not.”
Show all 15 citing cases →
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 450.1493a(a) — 4 cases
Virginia M. Damon Trust v. North Country Financial Corp. (2004) miwd “§ 450.1493a. 3 A commentator explains Michigan’s mandatory demand rule in the following-manner: The 1989 Amendments make demand on the corporation mandatory prior to the initiation of any derivative suit but authorize the filing of suit upon the corporation’s rejection of…”
Simon Property Group, Inc. v. Taubman Centers, Inc. (2003) mied “MCL 450.1493a(a). A filing may be made before the expiration of the 90 day period if the shareholder receives notice that his/her demand has been rejected or if the corporation would suffer irreparable injury if forced to wait for the period to expire.”
Huron City Company v. Charles Abram Parcells III (2018) michctapp “Specifically, plaintiff asserted that defendants did not state in their pleadings that they complied with, and in fact failed to comply with, the requirements of MCL 450.1493a, which required defendants to file a written demand to plaintiff to take “suitable action” and then…”
Huron City Company v. Charles Abram Parcells III (2018) michctapp “Specifically, plaintiff asserted that defendants did not state in their pleadings that they complied with, and in fact failed to comply with, the requirements of MCL 450.1493a, which required defendants to file a written demand to plaintiff to take “suitable action” and then…”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 450.1493a(b) — 1 case
Simon Property Group, Inc. v. Taubman Centers, Inc. (2003) mied “MCL 450.1493a(a). A filing may be made before the expiration of the 90 day period if the shareholder receives notice that his/her demand has been rejected or if the corporation would suffer irreparable injury if forced to wait for the period to expire.”
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.