| Site Map |
| Protecting the Rights of Business Owners |
Fryar Law Firm Home Page
- Eric Fryar Profile
- Christopher Grier Profile
- Mathew Buschi Profile
- Christina Richardson Profile
- Avniel Adler Profile
- Shareholder Oppression Practice
- Philosphy and Methods of Practice
- Our Cases
- Fryar Law Firm Cases-2011
- Fryar Law Firm Cases-2010
- Fryar Law Firm Cases-2009
- Fryar Law Firm Cases-2008
- Fryar Law Firm Cases-2007
- Fryar Law Firm News
- Indiana "Freeze Out" Claim: Haag Trucking Co., Inc. v. Haag
- Indiana Decision Upholding Dismissal of Derivative Claim as a Result of Freeze-Out Merger:
Long v. Biomet, Inc., 901 N.E.2d 37 (Ind. App. February 13, 2009)
- Iowa Shareholder Law
- Kansas Shareholder Law
- Kentucky Shareholder Law
- Louisiana Shareholder Law
- Maine Shareholder Law
- Maine Oppression Case: Kaplan v. First Hartford Corp
- Valuation of Minority Shares in an Oppression Case: Kaplan v. First Hartford Corp., --- F.Supp.
2d ----, 2009 WL 737681 (D. Me. March 20, 2009).
- Does a minority shareholder have a duty to preserve "S" tax status? Sery v. Federal Business
Centers, Inc.
- New York Shareholder Oppression Elements: Rusyniak v. Gensini
- Shareholder Oppression buyout remedy affirmed in New York: Lund v. Krass Snow &
Schmutter - New York Derivative/LLC case--Bartfield v. Murphy,
- Shareholder Oppression Decision: Davis v. Brockamp & Jaeger, Inc.
- Discussion of Valuation in Forced Buyout: Encompass Teleservices, Inc. v. Scheets
- Pennsylvania Shareholder Law
- Rhode Island Shareholder Law
- South Carolina Shareholder Law
- South Dakota Shareholder Law
- Shareholder Rights to Inspect Corporate Documents
- Enforcing Shareholder Inspection Rights
- Shareholder Oppression Claim
- Shareholder Rights in Fundamental Transactions
- Other Shareholder Rights
- Receivership and Dissolution
- Texas Shareholder Oppression Case--Gibney v. Culver
- Shareholder Litigation opinion--declaratory judgment, receivership, attorneys fees: Fortenberry
v. Cavanaugh - Ouster of a minority shareholder through a cash-out merger
- Personal Jurisdiction Issues in a Shareholder Oppression Case: Texva, Inc. v. Boone
- Return of Investment Remedy
- Nature of Expectations: Ritchie v. Rupe
- Fact Finding in a Texas Shareholder Oppression Case
- The Right to Transfer Shares as a Reasonable Expectation
- Application of the Texas Business Judgement Rule in Shareholder Oppression
- The Derivative Action in Texas
- Derivative Suit Standing: Asshaser v. Wells Fargo Foothill
- Texas Shareholder Derivative Action Case: In re Crown Castle Intern. Corp.
- Pleading of Derivative Claims Under Texas Law: Perry v. Cohen
- Procedural Issues Involving Derivative Suits and Cash Out Mergers: In Re Schmitz, ; Somers
v. Crane - Officer and Director Duties
- Liability of attorneys for aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duties--Span Enterprises v.
Wood - Texas Executive Compensation Decision: Carbona v. CH Medical, Inc.
- Damages for Breach of Fiduciary Duties: Norwood v. Norwood
- Indemnification of Officers and Directors
- Limitations Issues in Shareholder Derivative and Oppression Suits
- Squeeze-Out Tactics in a Texas General Partnership
- Record-Keeping Duties in Partnership Litigation
- Limitations in Extended Winding Up
- Virginia Shareholder Law
- Washington Shareholder Law
- West Virginia Shareholder Law
- Wisconsin Shareholder Law
- Wyoming Shareholder Law
 | |  | |  | |  | |  |
Search this Site
Shareholder Oppression Articles and Resources for Attorneys and
Shareholders
Shareholders
- General Resources
- Closely Held Corporations
- Introduction: Nature and Structure of Closely Held
Corporations - Alternative Business Forms
- Forming A Closely Held Corporation
- Shareholder Agreements
- Preemptive Rights and Dilution
- Shareholder Meetings
- Choice of Law
- Ultra Vires Doctrine
- Diversity Jurisdiction in Derivative Litigation: Bartfield v.
Murphy - Burford-type abstention in federal shareholder oppression
cases: Kermanshah v. Kermanshah
- Alabama Shareholder Law
- Alaska Shareholder Law
- Arizona Shareholder Law
- Arkansas Shareholder Law
- California Shareholder Law
- Tritek Telecom v. Superior Court, 169 Cal.App.4th 1385,
87 Cal.Rptr.3d 455 (Jan. 7, 2009) - Defending a Derivative Suit on the Merits: Patrick v. Alacer
Corp - Cotton v. Expo Power Systems, Inc., 89 Cal.Rptr.3d 112
(Cal. App. 2 Dist., February 09, 2009)
- Shareholder Oppression under Delaware Law: Litle v.
Waters - Shareholder Oppression Claim in Delaware Corporation:
Minor v. Albright - New Jersey federal court rejects oppression claim under
Delaware law--Nightingale & Associates, LLC v. Hopkins - Oppression Claim Involving Delaware Corporation:
Reserve Solutions, Inc. v. Vernaglia - Oppression Claim Involving Delaware Closely-Held
Corporation: Sokol v. Ventures Education Systems Corp - Pleading of Demand Futility on a Claim of Failure to
Monitor: In re Citigroup Inc. Shareholder Derivative
Litigation, 964 A.2d 106 (Del. Ch. February 24, 2009).