Minnesota Statutes
Minn. Stat. § 302A.243 (2026)
[Repealed]
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
MN-REVrevisor.mn.gov (official)
Justiaon Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
[Repealed, 1989 c 172 s 11]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 5
cases, 1988–2008 · leading case: Black v. NuAire, Inc., 426 N.W.2d 203 (Minn. Ct. App. 1988).
Black v. NuAire, Inc., 426 N.W.2d 203 (Minn. Ct. App. 1988). “1 Appellant challenges the constitutionality of Minn. Stat. § 302A.243 (1986), which authorizes a corporation’s board of directors to appoint a committee of disinterested persons to determine whether the corporation should pursue a shareholder derivative claim.”
In Re UnitedHealth Grp. Inc. Shareholder Derivative Litig., 754 N.W.2d 544 (Minn. 2008). “" Minn.Stat. § 302A.243 (1986). But the legislature stated that "the repeal of [section 302A.”
Skoglund v. Brady, 541 N.W.2d 17 (Minn. Ct. App. 1995). “243 (1988) provided: Unless prohibited by the articles or bylaws, the board may establish a committee composed of two or more disinterested directors or other disinterested persons to determine whether it is in the best interests of the corporation to pursue a particular legal…”
Drilling v. Berman, 589 N.W.2d 503 (Minn. Ct. App. 1999). “Prior to 1989, Minn.Stat. § 302A.243 (1988) restricted judicial review of a special litigation committee decision to terminate a derivative suit to a determination of whether the committee was disinterested and made its decision in good faith.”
Tudor Oaks Ltd. P'ship v. Cochrane (In Re Cochrane), 273 B.R. 272 (Bankr. M.D. Fla. 2001). “See Minn.Stat. § 302A.243 (1988) (repealed in 1989; current version at Minn.”
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.