Wyo. Stat. » Wyo. Stat. / Title 17 - Corporations, Partnerships and Associations / Chapter 16 - WYOMING BUSINESS CORPORATION ACT / Article 7 - SHAREHOLDERS
Wyoming Statutes

Wyo. Stat. § 17-16-742 (2026)

Demand.

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WY-LEGwyoleg.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar 
     (a)   No shareholder may commence a derivative proceeding
until:

          (i) A written demand has been made upon the
corporation to take suitable action; and

          (ii) Ninety (90) days have expired from the date the
demand was made unless the shareholder has earlier been notified
that the demand has been rejected by the corporation or unless
irreparable injury to the corporation would result by waiting
for the expiration of the ninety (90) day period.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 6 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 2001–2025 · leading case: Gob, LLC v. Rainbow Canyon, Inc., 2008 WY 157 (Wyo. 2008).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Gob, LLC v. Rainbow Canyon, Inc., 2008 WY 157 (Wyo. 2008). · cites it 4× “Additionally, Rainbow Canyon asserted that GOB did not make written demand on Rainbow Canyon to take appropriate action, as required by Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 17-16-742 (LexisNexis 2007).”
Werbowsky v. Collomb, 766 A.2d 123 (Md. 2001). “0742; Wyo.Stat. § 17-16-742. 9 . See Fla.Stat.Ann.”
Ritter v. Dollens, 841 N.E.2d 571 (Ind. 2006). “§ 16-10a-740(3)(a)(ii) (2000); Wyo. Stat Ann. § 17-16-742 (1997) 2 In addition, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court adopted the universal demand rule.”
Jain v. Nexgen Memantine, Inc. (M.D. Fla. 2021). “Wyo. Stat. § 17-16-742. The statute contains no explicit exception for futility.”
Zanfardino v. Kay (D.N.J. 2023). “” Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 17-16-742 (a). If the demand has been rejected, “the complaint shall allege with particularity facts establishing .”
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.