You are here: / / No Need to Be a Shareholder to Bring an Action Pursuant to BCL 720(b)
,

No Need to Be a Shareholder to Bring an Action Pursuant to BCL 720(b)

The Second Department noted there is no need to be a shareholder at the time a disputed resolution was adopted to bring an action for waste or breach of fiduciary duty pursuant to Business Corporation Law 720(b):

Unlike Business Corporation Law § 626, which authorizes a shareholder to bring a derivative action in the right of the corporation, Business Corporation Law § 720(b) authorizes a corporation, or an officer or director thereof, to commence an action to redress corporate waste or breach of fiduciary duty owed by officers and directors of the corporation … . While Business Corporation Law § 626(b) requires the plaintiff to be a shareholder at the time of the transaction of which he or she complains, there is no similar rule when a corporation, a director, or an officer commences an action pursuant to Business Corporation Law § 720(b) … . Gabel v Gabel, 2013 NY Slip Op 02050, 2011-10621, Index No 9839/10, 2nd Dept 3-27-13

 

You might also like
Where There Are Sharp Factual Disputes, Forensic Evaluations Are Required for a Guardianship Determination
Law Firm Representing Wife in a Divorce Proceeding Entitled to Charging Lien Pursuant to Judiciary Law 475 But Not Entitled to Money Judgment with Interest
THE USE OF POST-DISCHARGE AFFIDAVITS FROM TWO JURORS, CLAIMING JUROR CONFUSION, AS THE BASIS FOR THE MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE VERDICT WAS IMPROPER BECAUSE THERE WAS NO SUPPORT FOR THE CLAIMS IN THE RECORD; THE MOTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DENIED (SECOND DEPT).
IT WAS A PROPER EXERCISE OF DISCRETION TO EXTEND THE DEADLINE FOR THE FORECLOSURE SALE DUE TO THE COVID PANDEMIC; HOWEVER IT WAS AN ABUSE OF DISCRETION TO DENY THE MOTION TO TOLL THE ACCRUAL OF INTEREST DURING THE DELAY (SECOND DEPT).
RULES OF THE CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE CONCERNING THE CONTENTS OF AFFIDAVITS SUBMITTED BY BANK ATTORNEYS IN FORECLOSURE ACTIONS DID NOT EXCEED RULEMAKING POWERS AND MUST BE FOLLOWED.
LABOR LAW 193 PROHIBITS AN EMPLOYER FROM REDUCING AN EMPLOYEE’S PAY TO COMPENSATE FOR THE EMPLOYEE’S ALLEGEDLY POOR PERFORMANCE; HERE THE EMPLOYER REDUCED PLAINTIFF’S PAY TO RECOUP COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH PLAINTFF’S TRAFFIC ACCIDENT WITH A COMPANY TRUCK (SECOND DEPT).
REMOVING PORTABLE LIGHTING EQUIPMENT IS NOT ‘ALTERING’ A STRUCTURE WITHIN THE MEANING OF LABOR LAW 240(1), DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
WIRES WHICH CAUSED PLAINTIFF TO TRIP AND FALL WERE INTEGRAL TO THE WORK BEING PERFORMED AND CANNOT THEREFORE BE CONSIDERED DEBRIS WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE INDUSTRIAL CODE; THE LABOR LAW 241(6) CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

Criteria for 1983 Action Against Municipality Based On Policy or Custom “Professional” Standard of Care Can Be Required Based Solely on Nature...