Michigan Compiled Laws

Mich. Comp. Laws § 450.1765 (2026)

Notice of intent to demand payment for shares.

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MI-LEGlegislature.mi.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

BUSINESS CORPORATION ACT


Act 284 of 1972


450.1765 Notice of intent to demand payment for shares.

Sec. 765.

    (1) If a proposed corporate action that creates dissenters' rights under section 762 is submitted to a vote at a shareholders' meeting, a shareholder that wishes to assert dissenters' rights must deliver to the corporation before the vote is taken written notice of his, her, or its intent to demand payment for his, her, or its shares if the proposed action is effectuated and must not vote his, her, or its shares in favor of the proposed action.

    (2) If a corporate action creates dissenters' rights under section 762(1)(a)(ii) or (b)(ii), a shareholder that wishes to assert dissenters' rights must deliver to the corporation before the shares are purchased pursuant to the offer written notice of his, her, or its intent to demand payment for his, her, or its shares if the proposed action is taken and must not tender, or cause or permit to be tendered, any shares in response to the offer.

    (3) A shareholder that does not satisfy the requirements of subsection (1) or (2), as applicable, is not entitled to payment for his, her, or its shares under this act.

History: 1972, Act 284, Eff. Jan. 1, 1973 ;-- Am. 1989, Act 121, Eff. Oct. 1, 1989 ;-- Am. 2018, Act 85, Eff. June 24, 2018

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 1 case, 2019–2019 · leading case: Donald L Harkins v. Sun Pharm. Indus. Inc (Mich. Ct. App. 2019).
Donald L Harkins v. Sun Pharm. Indus. Inc (Mich. Ct. App. 2019). · cites it 2× “Failure to comply with this requirement means that a shareholder is not entitled to payment for his, her, or its shares.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 450.1765(1) — 1 case
Donald L Harkins v. Sun Pharm. Indus. Inc (Mich. Ct. App. 2019). “Failure to comply with this requirement means that a shareholder is not entitled to payment for his, her, or its shares.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 450.1765(3) — 1 case
Donald L Harkins v. Sun Pharm. Indus. Inc (Mich. Ct. App. 2019). “Failure to comply with this requirement means that a shareholder is not entitled to payment for his, her, or its shares.”
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.