How have courts interpreted the fiduciary relationship owed by controlling shareholders to minority shareholders?
California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from Cardinalli v. Cardinalli, H032309, No. M71906 (Cal. App. 2010):
Interactive Multimedia, supra, 62 Cal.App.4th 1546 reasoned that the fiduciary relationship owed by controlling shareholders to minority shareholders is a relationship of trust that is controlled by equitable restrictions and concluded that a minority shareholder's claim of a breach of such an relationship is an equitable claim without a right to a jury trial. (Id. at pp. 1555-1556; see Nelson v. Anderson (1999) 72 Cal.App.4th
Page 11
"The most advanced legal research software ever built."
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.
Other Questions
How have courts interpreted section 1016.5 of the California Immigration Code and how have the courts interpreted the word 'court' in that section? (California, United States of America)
How has the court interpreted the Miranda rights of a minor who, as a minor, waived his Miranda right to be arrested? (California, United States of America)
How have courts interpreted the interpretation of a federal agency's interpretation of the California Civil Code? (California, United States of America)
Does a court-appointed interpreter have to be an interpreter for an indigent plaintiff in a small claims action? (California, United States of America)
How have the courts interpreted the takings clause in the context of price controls? (California, United States of America)
Does a court have a duty to appoint a court-appointed interpreter for an indigent, non-English speaking litigant in a civil small claims proceeding? (California, United States of America)
Can a defense interpreter only interpret words of the witness interpreter at trial? (California, United States of America)
How have courts interpreted section 7031 of the California Code of Civil Procedure on the basis that a contractor is a "minor, incompetent and fraudulent contractor"? (California, United States of America)
How has section 69894.1 of the California Constitution been interpreted and interpreted by the courts? (California, United States of America)
How have courts interpreted section 1018 of the California Criminal Code when a defendant makes a statement in open court that authorizes or adopts a motion to withdraw his plea? (California, United States of America)
