Utah Code » Title 16, Chapter 10a — Utah Revised Business Corporation Act; part 16-10a-13 — Dissenters' Rights

Utah Code § 16-10a-1302

Right to dissent

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section UT-LEGle.utah.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

10/1/2026

A shareholder, whether or not entitled to vote, is entitled to dissent from, and obtain payment of the fair value of shares held by the shareholder in the event of, any of the following corporate actions:
consummation of a plan of merger to which the corporation is a party if:
shareholder approval is required for the merger by Section 16-1a-703 or the articles of incorporation; or
the corporation is a subsidiary that is merged with its parent under Section 16-10a-1104;
consummation of a plan of share exchange to which the corporation is a party as the corporation whose shares will be acquired;
consummation of a sale, lease, exchange, or other disposition of all, or substantially all, of the property of the corporation for which a shareholder vote is required under Subsection 16-10a-1202(1), but not including a sale for cash pursuant to a plan by which all or substantially all of the net proceeds of the sale will be distributed to the shareholders within one year after the date of sale; and
consummation of a sale, lease, exchange, or other disposition of all, or substantially all, of the property of an entity controlled by the corporation if the shareholders of the corporation were entitled to vote upon the consent of the corporation to the disposition pursuant to Subsection 16-10a-1202(2).
A shareholder is entitled to dissent and obtain payment of the fair value of the shareholder's shares in the event of any other corporate action to the extent the articles of incorporation, bylaws, or a resolution of the board of directors so provides.
Notwithstanding the other provisions of this part, except to the extent otherwise provided in the articles of incorporation, bylaws, or a resolution of the board of directors, and subject to the limitations set forth in Subsection (4), a shareholder is not entitled to dissent and obtain payment under Subsection (1) of the fair value of the shares of any class or series of shares which either were listed on a national securities exchange registered under the federal Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, or on the National Market System of the National Association of Securities Dealers Automated Quotation System, or were held of record by more than 2,000 shareholders, at the time of:
the record date fixed under Section 16-10a-707 to determine the shareholders entitled to receive notice of the shareholders' meeting at which the corporate action is submitted to a vote;
the record date fixed under Section 16-10a-704 to determine shareholders entitled to sign writings consenting to the proposed corporate action; or
the effective date of the corporate action if the corporate action is authorized other than by a vote of shareholders.
The limitation set forth in Subsection (3) does not apply if the shareholder will receive for the shareholder's shares, pursuant to the corporate action, anything except:
shares of the corporation surviving the consummation of the plan of merger or share exchange;
shares of a corporation which at the effective date of the plan of merger or share exchange either will be listed on a national securities exchange registered under the federal Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, or on the National Market System of the National Association of Securities Dealers Automated Quotation System, or will be held of record by more than 2,000 shareholders;
cash in lieu of fractional shares; or
any combination of the shares described in Subsection (4), or cash in lieu of fractional shares.
A shareholder entitled to dissent and obtain payment for the shareholder's shares under this part may not challenge the corporate action creating the entitlement unless the action is unlawful or fraudulent with respect to the shareholder or to the corporation.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 6 cases, 1997–2014 · leading case: Hogle v. Zinetics Medical, Inc.
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Hogle v. Zinetics Medical, Inc. (2002) utah · cites it 4× “section 16-10a-1302. They contend that the court failed to consider all relevant factors and failed to explain the basis for its valuation.”
Braun v. NEVADA CHEMICALS, INC. (2010) utahctapp · cites it 9× “” The trial court also observed that “Plaintiffs remedy for the claims alleged in the Amended Derivative Complaint is to exercise his statutory right to an appraisal of his shares” as provided by Utah Code section 16-10a-1302, see Utah Code Ann. § 16 -10a-1302 (2009).”
Utah Resources International, Inc. v. Mark Technologies Corp. (2014) utah · cites it 3× “Urag Cope § 16-10a-1302(1). 2 . Although we decline to reach the claims raised in the cross appeal, we briefly note them here.”
Oakridge Energy, Inc. v. Clifton (1997) utah · cites it 4× “Section 16-10a-1302 provides in relevant part: (1) A shareholder, whether or not entitled to vote, is entitled to dissent from, and obtain payment of the fair value of shares held by him in the event of, any of the following corporate actions: [[Image here]] (e) Consummation of…”
Torian v. Craig (2012) utah “" Urax Cops § 16-10a-1302(5). The Craigs maintain, however, that the statute is the exclusive remedy when a shareholder's claim is that a breach of fidu-clary duty has the primary effect of diminishing share value.”
Berger v. Intelident Solutions, Inc. (2006) delch “1302 (4) (2006) with Utah Code § 16-10a-1302(5) (2006) and Iowa Code § 490.”
— Utah Code § 16-10a-1302(1) — 1 case
Utah Resources International, Inc. v. Mark Technologies Corp. (2014) utah “Urag Cope § 16-10a-1302(1). 2 . Although we decline to reach the claims raised in the cross appeal, we briefly note them here.”
— Utah Code § 16-10a-1302(2) — 1 case
Utah Resources International, Inc. v. Mark Technologies Corp. (2014) utah “Urag Cope § 16-10a-1302(1). 2 . Although we decline to reach the claims raised in the cross appeal, we briefly note them here.”
— Utah Code § 16-10a-1302(5) — 3 cases
Torian v. Craig (2012) utah “" Urax Cops § 16-10a-1302(5). The Craigs maintain, however, that the statute is the exclusive remedy when a shareholder's claim is that a breach of fidu-clary duty has the primary effect of diminishing share value.”
Braun v. NEVADA CHEMICALS, INC. (2010) utahctapp “” The trial court also observed that “Plaintiffs remedy for the claims alleged in the Amended Derivative Complaint is to exercise his statutory right to an appraisal of his shares” as provided by Utah Code section 16-10a-1302, see Utah Code Ann. § 16 -10a-1302 (2009).”
Berger v. Intelident Solutions, Inc. (2006) delch “1302 (4) (2006) with Utah Code § 16-10a-1302(5) (2006) and Iowa Code § 490.”
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.