(a) If a corporation does not allow a qualified shareholder who complies with G.S. 55-16-02(a) to inspect and copy any records required by that subsection to be available for inspection, the superior court of the county where the corporation's principal office, or if none in this State, its registered office, is located may, upon application of the qualified shareholder, summarily order inspection and copying of the records demanded at the corporation's expense.
(b) If a corporation does not within a reasonable time allow a qualified shareholder who complies with G.S. 55-16-02(b) to inspect and copy the records required by that subsection, the qualified shareholder who complies with G.S. 55-16-02(b) and (c) may apply to the superior court in the county where the corporation's principal office, or if none in this State, its registered office, is located for an order to permit inspection and copying of the records demanded. The court shall dispose of an application under this subsection on an expedited basis.
(c) If the court orders inspection and copying of the records demanded, it may impose reasonable restrictions on their confidentiality, use, or distribution by the demanding qualified shareholder, and it shall also order the corporation to pay the qualified shareholder's costs, including reasonable attorneys' fees, incurred to obtain the order unless the corporation establishes that it refused inspection in good faith due to any of the following:
(1) The corporation had a reasonable basis for doubt about the right of the shareholder to inspect the records demanded.
(2) The corporation required reasonable restrictions on the confidentiality, use, or distribution of the records demanded to which the demanding qualified shareholder had been unwilling to agree.
(d) Repealed by Session Laws 2021-106, s. 6(e), effective October 1, 2021, and applicable to demands for inspection and requests for financial statements received by a corporation on or after that date. (1901, c. 2, s. 49; Rev., s. 1179; C.S., s. 1172; G.S., s. 55-109; 1955, c. 1371, s. 1; 1965, c. 609; 1973, c. 469, s. 11; 1989, c. 265, s. 1; 2021-106, s. 6(e).)
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
12
cases (
2 in the last 5 years), 1992–2023 · leading case:
Burgess v. Burgess, 698 S.E.2d 666 (N.C. Ct. App. 2010).
Burgess v. Burgess, 698 S.E.2d 666 (N.C. Ct. App. 2010).
· cites it 41× “I respectfully dissent from the majority opinion in affirming the trial court's order as to inspection of corporate records pursuant to N.C. Gen.Stat. § 55-16-04 as this statute does not state that the Superior Court has exclusive original jurisdiction over this claim.”
Parsons v. Jefferson-Pilot Corp., 426 S.E.2d 685 (N.C. 1993).
· cites it 3× “N.C.G.S. § 55-16-04 (1990). 3 . The Rules adopting the NOBO system are found in SEC Rules 14b-l, 14c-7 and 14a-13, Part 240, Code of Federal Regulations.”
Technik v. Winwholesale Inc., 2012 NCBC 5 (N.C. Bus. Ct. 2012).
· cites it 9× “N.C. Gen. Stat. § 55-16-04 (b) (2010). {21} Section 55-16-02(c)’s inspection requirements are conditions precedent to court-ordered inspection.”
Parsons v. Jefferson-pilot Corp., 416 S.E.2d 914 (N.C. Ct. App. 1992).
· cites it 6× “Both the parties appeal from an order entered 16 July 1991 allowing in part and denying in part the plaintiff’s request under N.C.G.S. § 55-16-04 (1990) to inspect and copy various corporate records of the defendant and denying the defendant’s motion for sanctions under N.”
E. Bauk v. Piedmont Cheerwine Bottling Co., 2020 NCBC 6 (N.C. Bus. Ct. 2020).
· cites it 16× “The Court DENIES Elizabeth and Stephan’s requests for costs and fees under N.C.G.S. §§ 55-16-04 and 55-16-05. b. With PCBC’s consent, the Court GRANTS the request to modify the Protective Order to permit Michael Bauk to view the documents located at ECF Nos.”
Beam v. Beam Rest Home, Inc., 2014 NCBC 46 (N.C. Bus. Ct. 2014).
· cites it 24× “§ 55-16-05(c), and (iii) permit Plaintiff’s inspection and copying of Defendant’s records as a shareholder of Defendant under N.C.G.S. § 55-16-04. addition to Defendant’s prior corporate record productions to Plaintiff totaling over 5,000 pages of documents in 2012 and 2013.”
Erwin v. Myers Park Country Club, Inc., 2021 NCBC 45 (N.C. Bus. Ct. 2021).
· cites it 14× “On 29 March 2021, Erwin filed his Complaint and asserted his Inspection Request, which asks the Court to “summarily order the inspection and copying of the records [Erwin] demanded in the March 12, 2021 Inspection Demand at Myers Park’s expense” pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 55-16-04.…”
Sharman v. Fortran Corp., 2018 NCBC 27 (N.C. Bus. Ct. 2018).
· cites it 9× “” N.C. Gen. Stat. § 55-16-04 (b). As a result, promptly after the issues were joined, the Court held a status conference with counsel on December 18, 2017 to discuss whether Plaintiffs’ inspection rights, and Fortran’s compliance with its statutory obligations, remained in…”
Downing v. Cycle Holdings, Inc., 2023 NCBC 10 (N.C. Bus. Ct. 2023).
· cites it 3× “” N.C.G.S. § 55-16-04(b) (2021). As a result, the Court promptly held a Webex conference with counsel on 26 October 2022.”
Hoepner v. Wachovia Corp., 2001 NCBC 06 (N.C. Bus. Ct. 2001).
· cites it 3× “Hoepner’s request pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 55-16-04 that Wachovia bear the costs for the production of documents demanded, but denies other costs incurred by Plaintiff in pursuit of this litigation.”
— N.C. Gen. Stat. § 55-16-04(a) — 2 cases
Burgess v. Burgess, 698 S.E.2d 666 (N.C. Ct. App. 2010).
“I respectfully dissent from the majority opinion in affirming the trial court's order as to inspection of corporate records pursuant to N.C. Gen.Stat. § 55-16-04 as this statute does not state that the Superior Court has exclusive original jurisdiction over this claim.”
Erwin v. Myers Park Country Club, Inc., 2021 NCBC 45 (N.C. Bus. Ct. 2021).
“On 29 March 2021, Erwin filed his Complaint and asserted his Inspection Request, which asks the Court to “summarily order the inspection and copying of the records [Erwin] demanded in the March 12, 2021 Inspection Demand at Myers Park’s expense” pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 55-16-04.…”
— N.C. Gen. Stat. § 55-16-04(b) — 7 cases
Burgess v. Burgess, 698 S.E.2d 666 (N.C. Ct. App. 2010).
“I respectfully dissent from the majority opinion in affirming the trial court's order as to inspection of corporate records pursuant to N.C. Gen.Stat. § 55-16-04 as this statute does not state that the Superior Court has exclusive original jurisdiction over this claim.”
Parsons v. Jefferson-pilot Corp., 416 S.E.2d 914 (N.C. Ct. App. 1992).
“Both the parties appeal from an order entered 16 July 1991 allowing in part and denying in part the plaintiff’s request under N.C.G.S. § 55-16-04 (1990) to inspect and copy various corporate records of the defendant and denying the defendant’s motion for sanctions under N.”
Technik v. Winwholesale Inc., 2012 NCBC 5 (N.C. Bus. Ct. 2012).
“N.C. Gen. Stat. § 55-16-04 (b) (2010). {21} Section 55-16-02(c)’s inspection requirements are conditions precedent to court-ordered inspection.”
Sharman v. Fortran Corp., 2018 NCBC 27 (N.C. Bus. Ct. 2018).
“” N.C. Gen. Stat. § 55-16-04 (b). As a result, promptly after the issues were joined, the Court held a status conference with counsel on December 18, 2017 to discuss whether Plaintiffs’ inspection rights, and Fortran’s compliance with its statutory obligations, remained in…”
E. Bauk v. Piedmont Cheerwine Bottling Co., 2020 NCBC 6 (N.C. Bus. Ct. 2020).
“The Court DENIES Elizabeth and Stephan’s requests for costs and fees under N.C.G.S. §§ 55-16-04 and 55-16-05. b. With PCBC’s consent, the Court GRANTS the request to modify the Protective Order to permit Michael Bauk to view the documents located at ECF Nos.”
— N.C. Gen. Stat. § 55-16-04(c) — 2 cases
E. Bauk v. Piedmont Cheerwine Bottling Co., 2020 NCBC 6 (N.C. Bus. Ct. 2020).
“The Court DENIES Elizabeth and Stephan’s requests for costs and fees under N.C.G.S. §§ 55-16-04 and 55-16-05. b. With PCBC’s consent, the Court GRANTS the request to modify the Protective Order to permit Michael Bauk to view the documents located at ECF Nos.”
Erwin v. Myers Park Country Club, Inc., 2021 NCBC 45 (N.C. Bus. Ct. 2021).
“On 29 March 2021, Erwin filed his Complaint and asserted his Inspection Request, which asks the Court to “summarily order the inspection and copying of the records [Erwin] demanded in the March 12, 2021 Inspection Demand at Myers Park’s expense” pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 55-16-04.…”
— N.C. Gen. Stat. § 55-16-04(d) — 2 cases
E. Bauk v. Piedmont Cheerwine Bottling Co., 2020 NCBC 6 (N.C. Bus. Ct. 2020).
“The Court DENIES Elizabeth and Stephan’s requests for costs and fees under N.C.G.S. §§ 55-16-04 and 55-16-05. b. With PCBC’s consent, the Court GRANTS the request to modify the Protective Order to permit Michael Bauk to view the documents located at ECF Nos.”
Erwin v. Myers Park Country Club, Inc., 2021 NCBC 45 (N.C. Bus. Ct. 2021).
“On 29 March 2021, Erwin filed his Complaint and asserted his Inspection Request, which asks the Court to “summarily order the inspection and copying of the records [Erwin] demanded in the March 12, 2021 Inspection Demand at Myers Park’s expense” pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 55-16-04.…”
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.