Nevada Revised Statutes

Nev. Rev. Stat. § 86.286 (2026)

Operating agreement

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NRSleg.state.nv.us (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
NRS 86.286  Operating agreement.

      1.  A limited-liability company may, but is not required to, adopt an operating agreement. An operating agreement may be adopted only by the unanimous vote or unanimous written consent of the members, which may be in any tangible or electronic format, or by the sole member. If any operating agreement provides for the manner in which it may be amended, including by requiring the approval of a person who is not a party to the operating agreement or the satisfaction of conditions, it may be amended only in that manner or as otherwise permitted by law and any attempt to otherwise amend the operating agreement shall be deemed void and of no legal force or effect unless otherwise provided in the operating agreement. Unless otherwise provided in the operating agreement, amendments to the agreement may be adopted only by the unanimous vote or unanimous written consent of the persons who are members at the time of amendment.

      2.  An operating agreement may be adopted before, after or at the time of the filing of the articles of organization and, whether entered into before, after or at the time of the filing, may become effective at the formation of the limited-liability company or at a later date specified in the operating agreement. If an operating agreement is adopted:

      (a) Before the filing of the articles of organization or before the effective date of formation specified in the articles of organization, the operating agreement is not effective until the effective date of formation of the limited-liability company.

      (b) After the filing of the articles of organization or after the effective date of formation specified in the articles of organization, the operating agreement binds the limited-liability company and may be enforced whether or not the limited-liability company assents to the operating agreement.

      3.  An operating agreement may provide that a certificate of limited-liability company interest issued by the limited-liability company may evidence a member’s interest in a limited-liability company.

      4.  An operating agreement:

      (a) May provide, but is not required to provide:

             (1) Rights to any person, including a person who is not a party to the operating agreement, to the extent set forth therein;

             (2) For the admission of any person as a member of the company dependent upon any fact or event that may be ascertained outside the articles of organization or the operating agreement, if the manner in which the fact or event may operate on the determination of the person or the admission of the person as a member of the company is set forth in the articles of organization or the operating agreement;

             (3) That the personal representative of the last remaining member is obligated to agree in writing to the admission of the personal representative, or its nominee or designee, as a member of the company effective upon the occurrence of the event that terminated the last remaining member’s status as a member of the company;

             (4) For the admission of any person as a member of the company upon or after the death, retirement, resignation, expulsion, bankruptcy, dissolution or dissociation of, or any other event affecting, a member or the last remaining member, or after there is no longer a member of the company; or

             (5) Any other provision, not inconsistent with law or the articles of organization, which the members elect to set out in the operating agreement for the regulation of the internal affairs of the company.

      (b) Must be interpreted and construed to give the maximum effect to the principle of freedom of contract and enforceability.

      5.  If, and to the extent that, a member or manager or other person has duties to a limited-liability company, to another member or manager, or to another person that is a party to or is otherwise bound by the operating agreement, such duties may be expanded, restricted or eliminated by provisions in the operating agreement, except that an operating agreement may not eliminate the implied contractual covenant of good faith and fair dealing.

      6.  Unless otherwise provided in an operating agreement, a member, manager or other person is not liable for breach of duties, if any, to a limited-liability company, to any of the members or managers or to another person that is a party to or otherwise bound by the operating agreement for conduct undertaken in the member’s, manager’s or other person’s good faith reliance on the provisions of the operating agreement.

      7.  An operating agreement may provide for the limitation or elimination of any and all liabilities for breach of contract and breach of duties, if any, of a member, manager or other person to a limited-liability company, to any of the members or managers, or to another person that is a party to or is otherwise bound by the operating agreement. An operating agreement may not limit or eliminate liability for any conduct that constitutes a bad faith violation of the implied contractual covenant of good faith and fair dealing.

      8.  The Secretary of State may make available a model operating agreement for use by and at the discretion of a limited-liability company according to such terms and limitations as established by the Secretary of State. The use of such an operating agreement does not create a presumption that the contents of the operating agreement are accurate or that the operating agreement is valid.

      (Added to NRS by 1995, 2106; A 1997, 718; 2001, 1391, 3199; 2007, 2425; 2009, 1696; 2011, 779; 2013, 1276; 2015, 3239)

     

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 13 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 2009–2024 · leading case: Plyam v. Precision Dev., LLC (In Re Plyam), 530 B.R. 456 (9th Cir. BAP 2015).
Plyam v. Precision Dev., LLC (In Re Plyam), 530 B.R. 456 (9th Cir. BAP 2015). · cites it 2× “See Nev.Rev.Stat. § 86.286 (2013). Here,' the 2005 operating agreement does not expressly establish the existence or the non-existence of fiduciary duties owed to Precision by its manager.”
JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. v. KB Home, 632 F. Supp. 2d 1013 (D. Nev. 2009). · cites it 3× “2009) (amending Nev.Rev. Stat. § 86.286). Although this provision does not take effect until October 1, 2009, it nonetheless suggests the Nevada Legislature’s intent is to allow parties to a limited liability company’s operating agreement to limit or eliminate fiduciary duties.”
Weddell v. H2O, INC., 271 P.3d 743 (Nev. 2012). “An LLC may, but is not required to, adopt an operating agreement, NRS 86.286, which is defined as “any valid written agreement of the members as to the affairs of a limited-liability company and the conduct of its business.”
In Re: Go Global, Inc. (9th Cir. BAP 2014). · cites it 6× “NRS 86.286(6) Did Not Preclude A Finding That Paulson Was Liable for Breach of Fiduciary Duties As A Matter of Law 6 7 Appellants next contend that, as a matter of law, no breach 8 of fiduciary duty occurred pursuant to NRS 86.”
Stec v. Fuzion Inv. Capital, LLC, 2012 NCBC 24 (N.C. Bus. Ct. 2012). “While Plaintiff cites Nev. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 86.286 to support his contention that a fiduciary relationship exists, the cited statute begins with the following language: “to the extent that a .”
Israyelyan Vs. Chavez (Nev. 2020). · cites it 2× “101 (defining "operating agreement'' as "any valid agreement of the members as to the affairs of a limited-liability company and the conduct of its business, whether in any tangible or electronic formar); see also NRS 86.286(1) (providing that an operating agreement must be…”
Marc Harris v. Dean Meiling (D. Nev. 2019). · cites it 2× “See NRS § 86.286(4)(b), (7). 7 That leaves Chemeon’s counterclaim for breach of contract (ECF No.”
HP Tuners, LLC v. Cannata (D. Nev. 2019). “§86.286. This could be by express language in the operating agreement or 23 through language that has a similar effect.”
HP Tuners, LLC v. Cannata (D. Nev. 2022). “§86.286. This could be by express language in the operating agreement or 6 through language that has a similar effect.”
Conde Panama LLC v. AECOS, Ltd. (S.D.N.Y. 2021). “; see also Nev. Rev. Stat. § 86.286 . With respect to Managing Members like Howells, Aecos’s operating agreement provides: The Managing Members shall not be liable, responsible or accountable, whether directly or indirectly, in contract, tort or otherwise, to the other Members…”
Fed. Hous. Fin. Agency as Conservator of Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac v. Saticoy Bay LLC (D. Nev. 2024). “8 4 So eight years after this case began and four years after I found that the Federal 5 Foreclosure Bar prevented the deeds of trust on these properties from being extinguished at 6 foreclosure, we now return to these issues.”
Jsa, LLC v. Golden Gaming, Inc. (Nev. 2013). “3d 743, 749 (2012) ("An LLC may, but is not required to, adopt an operating agreement, NRS 86.286."). Accordingly, the evidence presented did not establish a breach of corporate formalities.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 86.286(1) — 1 case
Israyelyan Vs. Chavez (Nev. 2020). “101 (defining "operating agreement'' as "any valid agreement of the members as to the affairs of a limited-liability company and the conduct of its business, whether in any tangible or electronic formar); see also NRS 86.286(1) (providing that an operating agreement must be…”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 86.286(4)(b) — 1 case
Marc Harris v. Dean Meiling (D. Nev. 2019). “See NRS § 86.286(4)(b), (7). 7 That leaves Chemeon’s counterclaim for breach of contract (ECF No.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 86.286(5) — 1 case
Israyelyan Vs. Chavez (Nev. 2020). “101 (defining "operating agreement'' as "any valid agreement of the members as to the affairs of a limited-liability company and the conduct of its business, whether in any tangible or electronic formar); see also NRS 86.286(1) (providing that an operating agreement must be…”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 86.286(6) — 1 case
In Re: Go Global, Inc. (9th Cir. BAP 2014). “NRS 86.286(6) Did Not Preclude A Finding That Paulson Was Liable for Breach of Fiduciary Duties As A Matter of Law 6 7 Appellants next contend that, as a matter of law, no breach 8 of fiduciary duty occurred pursuant to NRS 86.”
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.