Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
MADISON LIQUIDITY INVESTORS 103 LLC, et al., Petitioners-Respondents, v. H. AUGUSTUS CAREY, et al., Respondents-Appellants.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Sheila Abdus Salaam, J.), entered on or about March 29, 2001, which granted petitioners' application to compel respondents to produce shareholder lists of the corporate respondents, unanimously affirmed, with costs.
As New York resident shareholders in respondent foreign corporations, petitioners are entitled to inspect the corporations' shareholder lists for the avowed purpose of soliciting sales of stock from other shareholders (Business Corporation Law § 1315; Matter of Crane Co. v. Anaconda Co., 39 N.Y.2d 14, 382 N.Y.S.2d 707, 346 N.E.2d 507). It does not avail respondents to argue that petitioners' intent is to purchase less than a controlling interest at a “discount” for personal gain (see, at 22, 382 N.Y.S.2d 707, 346 N.E.2d 507), at least absent any showing that forces other than the market would dictate the price of the shares petitioners would purchase (see, id., at 23, 382 N.Y.S.2d 707, 346 N.E.2d 507). As respondents fail to raise an issue of fact in the latter regard, or other evidence tending to show an improper purpose or bad faith, their request for a hearing was properly rejected. Nor does it avail respondents to argue that under the law of Maryland, where the corporate respondents were incorporated, petitioners lack the minimum 5% equity interest necessary to entitle a shareholder to the inspection that petitioners seek (see, Sadler v. NCR Corp., 928 F.2d 48, 55).
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Decided: February 28, 2002
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)