Wyoming Statutes

Wyo. Stat. § 17-16-741 (2026)

Standing.

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WY-LEGwyoleg.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) A shareholder may not commence or maintain a
derivative proceeding unless the shareholder:

          (i) Was a shareholder of the corporation at the time
of the act or omission complained of, or became a shareholder
through transfer by operation of law from one who was a
shareholder at the time; and

          (ii) Fairly and adequately represents the interests
of the corporation in enforcing the right of the corporation.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 5 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 2004–2025 · leading case: Woods v. Wells Fargo Bank Wyoming, 2004 WY 61 (Wyo. 2004).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Woods v. Wells Fargo Bank Wyoming, 2004 WY 61 (Wyo. 2004). · cites it 6× “Case Number 02-174 [¶ 3] In his appeal of the dismissal of the shareholders derivative suit, Steven Woods presents one issue: In a derivative stockholders action, was summary judgment properly granted where there was evidence that the demand requirement of Wyo. Stat. § 17-16-741…”

Gob, LLC v. Rainbow Canyon, Inc., 2008 WY 157 (Wyo. 2008). · cites it 2× “Specifically, pursuant to Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 17-16-741 : (a) A shareholder may not commence or maintain a derivative proceeding unless the shareholder: (1) Was a shareholder of the corporation at the time of the act or omission complained of, or became a shareholder through…”

Ravenswood Inv. Co. v. Bishop Capital Corp., 374 F. Supp. 2d 1055 (D. Wyo. 2005). · cites it 4× “” Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 17-16-741 . “The determination of whether a plaintiff fairly and adequately represents the interests of similarly situated shareholders and the corporation is fact-specific.”

Bd. of Prof'l Responsibility, Wyoming State Bar v. Gay Vanderpoel Woodhouse, WSB 5-1580, 2022 WY 85 (Wyo. 2022). · cites it 2× “1 and W.S. § 17-16-741 applicable to such actions.”

HPIL Holding, Inc. v. Haining Zhang (E.D. Mich. 2025). “” But, on April 28, 2023, Judge Carras dismissed the derivative counterclaims against Zhang and Collette with prejudice because (1) despite prior purchase agreements, Philbrick, Dougherty, and Wong were not continuous HPIL shareholders throughout the receivership proceedings,…”

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.