Post-Dissolution Liabilities of Shareholders and Directors for Claims Against Dissolved Corporations
Friedlander, D. Gilbert & Lannie, P. Anthony
Citation analytics
How this journal article sits in the citation network, derived from CiteLaw's graph of published opinions.
Citations by decade
Courts citing this journal article
Most recently cited by5
- 2021In re Altaba, Inc. Del. Ch.
- 2006Ballard Square Condominium Owners Ass'n v. Dynasty Construction Co. Wash.
- 2005Ballard Square Condominium Owners Ass'n v. Dynasty Construction Co. Wash. Ct. App.
- 2004Beazer Homes Nevada, Inc. v. Eighth Judicial District Court of the State of Nevada Nev.
- 1999Smith v. Sea Ventures, Inc. Wash. Ct. App.
Counts reflect decisions in the CiteLaw corpus and may lag very recent opinions.
Abstract
This Article initially will explore the nature and extent of shareholders' and directors' liabilities for contingent claims against the dissolved corporation by examining section 105 of the Model Business Corporation Act and the case law of those states that have adopted the Model Act.' Two purposes underlying the Model Act are uniformity and progressive resolution of issues inadequately resolved by the common law or earlier statutes. An exhaustive analysis of the case law under section 105 of the Model Act, however,reveals that both purposes have been frustrated, if not defeated. First, uniformity among jurisdictions, as well as within each Model Act state, is defeated by the overwhelming inconsistency in the case law. Litigants presently can choose precedent to support almost any position they seek to argue.
Moreover, section 105 itself does not resolve clearly any of the major post-dissolution liability issues. Its ambiguous language has furnished litigants and courts with little guidance in determining the legislatively intended answers to key issues.