Coverage note: this corpus holds the
consolidated Pa.C.S. titles only. Unconsolidated P.S. statutes (UTPCPL 73 P.S. § 201-1, Liquor Code, wage payment laws) are not included; a miss here does not mean the statute does not exist. Check
palegis.us.
§ 5545. Income from corporate activities.
A nonprofit corporation whose lawful activities involve among other things the charging
of fees or prices for its services or products, shall have the right to receive such
income and, in so doing, may make an incidental profit. All such incidental profits
shall be applied to the maintenance and operation of the lawful activities of the
corporation, and in no case shall be divided or distributed in any manner whatsoever
among the members, directors, or officers of the corporation. As used in this section
the terms fees or prices do not include rates of contribution, fees or dues levied
under an insurance certificate issued by a fraternal benefit society, so long as the
distribution of profits arising from said fees or prices is limited to the purposes
set forth in this section and section 5551 (relating to dividends prohibited; compensation
and certain payments authorized).
(July 30, 1975, P.L.128, No.63; Dec. 21, 1988, P.L.1444, No.177, eff. Oct. 1, 1989)
Notes of Decisions
Ciamaichelo v. Indep. Blue Cross, 928 A.2d 407 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2007).
· cites it 10× “Count I In Count I of their complaint, Plaintiffs allege that IBC has violated section 5545 of the Nonprofit Law, 15 Pa.C.S. § 5545, by failing to apply all incidental profits to the maintenance and operation of IBC's lawful activities.”
Ciamaichelo v. Indep. Blue Cross, 909 A.2d 1211 (Pa. 2006).
· cites it 4× “(Class Action Complaint ¶¶ 1, 27, 41) In Count 1, the Complaint claims that IBC violated Section 5545 of the Non-Profit Law, 15 Pa.C.S. § 5545, [2] and that under Section 5551(c) of the same statute, 15 Pa.”
Com. of Pa. v. New Foundations, Inc., 182 A.3d 1059 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2018).
· cites it 4× “It requires that income be devoted to the lawful activities of the nonprofit and specifically prohibits the distribution of excess income to any director, officer or member of the nonprofit.”
Petty v. Hosp. Serv. Ass'n, 23 A.3d 1004 (Pa. 2011).
· cites it 3× “In the first count, appellants alleged Blue Cross violated 15 Pa.C.S. § 5545 of the Nonprofit Law 1 by accumulating excessive profits and surplus well beyond the “incidental profit” permitted by the statute.”
Petty v. Hosp. Serv. Ass'n of Ne. Pennsylvania, 967 A.2d 439 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2009).
· cites it 2× “Count I of the Petty Complaint alleged that Northeastern Blue Cross violated Section 5545 of the Nonprofit Law, 2 15 Pa.C.S. § 5545, because of its accumulation of excessive profits and reserves and conduct operating with a “for profit” motive.”
Indep. Blue Cross v. Pennsylvania Ins. Dep't, 802 A.2d 715 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2002).
“It is claimed that IBC has violated Section 5545 of the Nonprofit Corporation Law of 1988 (Nonprofit Law), 15 Pa.C.S. § 5545, committed breach of contract, and breach of fiduciary duty.”
Cnty. of Butler v. Centurylink Commc'ns, LLC, 163 A.3d 504 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2017).
“The construction company alleged that the insurance company, acquired profits in excess of the “incidental profit” permitted by- Section 5545 of the Pennsylvania Nonprofit Corporation Law of 1988 (Nonprofit Law), 15 Pa. C.S. § 5545. 8 The Su *511 preme Court held that the…”
Herman v. Capital Blue Cross, 11 A.3d 23 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2010).
· cites it 2× “15 Pa.C.S. § 5545. Section 5545 of the Nonprofit Law provides, in pertinent part: A nonprofit corporation whose lawful activities involve among other things the charging of fees or prices for its services or products, shall have the right to receive such income and, in so doing,…”
Petty v. Hosp. Serv. Ass'n, 967 A.2d 439 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2009).
· cites it 2× “Count I of the Petty Complaint alleged that Northeastern Blue Cross violated Section 5545 of the Nonprofit Law, [2] 15 Pa.C.S. § 5545, because of its accumulation of excessive profits and reserves and conduct operating with a "for profit" motive.”
In Re: J. Buncher Found. ~ Appeal of: A. Rubinoff (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2020).
“Before we can address whether the Orphans’ Court erred by failing to conclude that Bernita Buncher, Doring, and Jackovic breached their fiduciary duties 8 15 Pa. C.S. § 5545. 18 to the Foundation, we must first consider Appellants’ proposition that Bernita Buncher, Doring, and…”
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.