Call for an appointment 888-481-9995

North Dakota Shareholder Law

Brief survey of North Dakota shareholder law.

Follow Us

North Dakota Shareholder Law Survey

Shareholder Inspection Rights

Shareholders in North Dakota corporations that are not publicly traded have slightly different inspection rights than those that are publicly traded. See N.D. Cent. Code § 10-19.1-84 (2008). Upon written demand, shareholders in corporations that are not publicly traded have an absolute right to inspect and copy the following corporate documents: share register; records of proceedings of shareholders and the board for the past three years; articles of incorporation and bylaws; certain financial statements; reports made to shareholders for the past three years; names and business addresses of current directors and officers; voting trust and shareholder agreements and certain other agreements and contracts. §§ 10-19.1-84(2), 10-19.1-84(4). These documents must be made available to the requesting shareholder within ten days of receipt of the inspection demand. § 10-19.1-84(4). Additionally, other corporate documents are available for inspection upon a showing of a proper shareholder purpose. § 10-19.1-84(5). In contrast, shareholders in publicly traded corporations have the right to inspect the same corporate documents; however, this right is not absolute and the requesting shareholder must first state a proper purposein his or her demand. § 10-19.1-84(6).

Upon application by the corporation, a court may issue a protective order allowing the corporation to withhold from the documents supplied in response to an inspection demand portions of proceedings of the board if disclosure would cause competitive injury to the corporation. § 10-19.1-84(8).

Shareholder Oppression

North Dakota law allows shareholders of a close corporation to petition for involuntary judicial dissolution of a corporation if the “directors or those in control of the corporation have acted fraudulently or illegally toward one or more shareholders in their capacities as shareholders, directors, officers or employees.” § 10-19.1-115(1)(b)(2). Dissolution is also available if the directors or controlling interest have acted in a manner that is unfairly prejudicial toward other shareholders. § 10-19.1-115(1)(b)(3).

Although not statutorily defined, the “oppression” concept is intended to cover a broad range of conduct that is neither illegal nor fraudulent but is nevertheless improper. Balvik v. Sylvester, 411 N.W.2d 383, 385-86 (N.D. 1987). North Dakota courts have analyzed oppression in terms of the fiduciary duties owed by the majority to the minority and the reasonable expectations of the minority shareholder in participating in the corporation. Id. at 387. The fiduciary duties owed by the majority are analogous to those owed by partners in a partnership and require the majority to observe a standard of the utmost good faith and loyalty. Id. This means that the majority “may not act out of avarice, expediency or self-interest in derogation of their duty.” Id. Violation of these duties often frustrates the expectations of the minority interest that generally include employment with the corporation, a share in its earnings and a voice in its management. Id. Whether the minority’s expectations have been frustrated depends on what the majority interest knew or should have known at the time the minority interest joined the corporation. Id. Courts should examine these expectations objectively and not find oppression simply because the minority shareholder was subjectively disappointed or that his hopes or desires were not fulfilled by the operation of the business. Id.

Derivative Suits

Shareholders of close corporations may bring derivative suits on behalf of a corporation for wrongs against the corporation. See § 10-19.1-86. In order to have standing to bring a derivative suit, a plaintiff must have been a shareholder at the time the cause of action arose or received the shares by operation of law from someone who held them at that time. § 10-19.1-86. If the shareholder or shareholders pursuing the derivative action own, either individually or in the aggregate, less than five percent of the outstanding shares of any class of stock, the corporation is entitled to demand security for the reasonable expenses incurred in connection with the suit unless the value of the plaintiffs’ shares exceeds twenty-five thousand dollars. § 10-19.1-86(2).

Additionally, if the court determines that the action was brought without reasonable cause the plaintiff may be required to pay the defendants’ reasonable expenses and attorneys’ fees incurred in connection with the suit. § 10-19.1-86(1). North Dakota recognizes the general rule that shareholders who seek to redress an injury to the corporation must do so through a derivative suit rather than an individual action. Schumacher v. Schumacher, 469 N.W.2d 793, 798 (N.D. 1991). However, in cases that involve a breach of the fiduciary duty owed by the majority or where the shareholder suffers a harm that is unique to him, the court may allow the claim to proceed directly whereas otherwise it would have to be brought as a derivative action. Id.

Share this content
Fryar Law Firm Knows Shareholder Oppression - Knowledge Makes The Difference

We are licensed only in Texas

In order to remain on the cutting edge of business owner rights law, Fryar Law Firm keeps abreast of legal developments in all 50 states. This 50-state survey is presented for educational purposes. However, we do not hold ourselves out as experts on the law of any jurisdiction other than Texas, and we may not practice law in any other state, with the following exceptions:

  • The lawsuit involves a non-Texas company but may be brought in Texas courts--example, if the client is a Texan or the company operates in Texas.

  • We are part of a legal team that includes local counsel. Out of state legal teams benefit from our experience when we consult. We may also act as lead counsel, if we have local co-counsel and permission of the court.

  • We are offering general consultation and are performing our work in Texas. We often consult with out-of-state clients on litigation strategy or assist them in organizing for litigation or settlement or in putting together a legal team. We also assist out-of-state clients in exercising their rights to corporate information.

This post represents our opinion regarding the relevant shareholder oppression and minority ownership rights law. However, not everyone agrees with us, and the law is changing quickly in this area. This page may not be up to date. Be sure to consult with qualified counsel before relying on any information of this page. See Terms and Conditions.

Fryar Law Firm Top 50 Verdicts in the Nation 2015Fryar Law Firm Largest 2015 Fraud Verdict in Texas2018-top100-verdicts-tx-firm