The Michigan Supreme Court’s ruling in Madugula v Taub, Case No. 146289 (July 15, 2014) is important because the court put to rest any doubt as to whether claims arising under the Shareholder Oppression Statute, MCL 450.1489 of the Michigan Business Corporations Act, are tried to jury.
Specifically, the Supreme Court held that the plain language of §489 expresses no legislative intent to have §489 claims heard by a jury; nor do claimants possess a constitutional right to a jury trial under §489 because, the Supreme Court found, such claims would have been deemed equitable when the Michigan Constitution was adopted.
Lastly, the Supreme Court clarified that the breach of a stockholder’s agreement can be evidence of shareholder oppression under §489.
- Partner
Matthew J. Boettcher is a member of Plunkett Cooney's Board of Directors and serves as Leader of the firm's Commercial Litigation Practice Group. Mr. Boettcher, who practices in the Bloomfield Hills office, represents clients in ...
Add a comment
Topics
- Commercial Real Estate
- Real Estate
- Commercial Liability
- Artificial Intelligence
- Attorney-client Privilege
- Contracts
- Business Risk Management
- Commercial Loans
- Tax Law
- Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR)
- Commercial Leasing
- Personal Tax Controversy
- Defamation
- Business Torts
- Business Tax Controversy
- Civil Litigation
- COVID-19
- Bankruptcy
- Property tax
- Real Estate Mortgages
- Coronavirus
- Banking Law
- Standing
- Mortgage Foreclosure
- Risk Management
- Lending
- Fraud Activity
- Cyber Attack
- Facilitation
- Shareholder Liability
- Appellate Law
- Insurance
- Trade Secrets
- Corporate Formation
- Litigation Discovery
- Cybersecurity
- Cryptocurrency
- Regulatory Law
- Statute of Limitations
- Damages Recovery
- privacy
- e-Discovery
- Noncompete Agreements
- Class Action
- Product Liability
- Pensions
- Biometric Data
- e-Commerce
- Internet Law
- Consumer Protection
- Residential Liability
- Venue
- Zoning and Planning
- Clawback
- Department of Education (DOE)
- Receiverships
- Fair Debt Collection Practices Act
- Fair Credit Reporting Act
- Garnishments
- Unfair Competition
- Uniform Commercial Code (UCC)
Recent Updates
- When a Forged Deed Doesn't End the Story: What Toure v. Davis Means for Good-Faith Property Improvers in Michigan
- AI and the Unintended Consequences of Immediate Analysis
- Afroman Case Teaches Business Owners Lessons on Defamation, Free Expression
- Is Arbitration the Right Call for Your Business Contract Needs?
- The Million Dollar Question: Who Pays the Attorney’s Fees?
- When is Performance Excused due to Contractual Impossibility?
- Why Delinquent Taxpayers Should Circle the IRS Collection Statute Expiration Date on Their Calendars
- How the Reversal of Chevron will Impact the IRS
- IRS Passport Denial and Revocation Program - What you Need to Know and how to Reclaim Your Passport
- Understanding the Federal Taxpayer Advocate Service and Taxpayer Bill of Rights





