NEW:  Fox Rothschild discusses the North Carolina Business Court’s decision in Jason Richardson, et al. v. Utili-Serve, LLC, et al., C.A. No. 20-1429, opinion (N.C. Super. Nov. 17, 2020), finding that a majority LLC member’s unilateral amendment to an LLC Agreement to limit minority members’ inspection rights in response to minority members’ demand for inspection did not preclude inspection.

Fox Rothschild discusses the North Carolina Business Court’s decision in Elizabeth Bauk v. Piedmont Cheerwine Bottling Co., 18-358, opinion (N.C. Super. Jan. 21, 2020), which denied shareholders’ request for attorneys’ fees incurred in obtaining a consent order compelling defendant corporation to adequately respond to document inspection demands, finding that entitlement to attorneys’ fees under North Carolina’s Business Corporation Act requires an adjudicative order, in Hello? Is it fees you’re looking for?

Womble Bond Dickinson discusses the North Carolina Business Court’s decision in Curtis Albright v. Vining-Sparks Securities, Inc., et al., No. 18-18223, opinion (N.C. Super. Ct. Dec. 31, 2019), finding that the right to inspect a Tennessee entity’s business records was a “transitory claim” that can be brought in any jurisdiction, in A Statutory Inspection Claim Need Not Be Brought In The Foreign Company’s Home Jurisdiction, Even If That Foreign Jurisdiction Is Delaware.

Fox Rothschild discusses the North Carolina Business Court’s ruling in In re Matter of Special Shareholders’ Meeting of Phytonix Corp., C.A. No. 19-17320, opinion (N.C. Super. Ct. Jan. 11, 2020), interpreting provisions of the North Carolina Business Corporation Act that permit stockholders to demand a “Special Meeting” in Special Shareholder Meetings: Where the minutes are kept, but the time (for notice) is wasted.

Fox Rothschild discusses the North Carolina Business Court’s decision in Value Health Solutions. Inc., et al. v. Pharmaceutical Research Associates., Inc., et al., C.A. No. 18-12318, opinion (N.C. Super. Ct. Sept. 6, 2019), dismissing fraud and misrepresentation claims, in N.C. Business Court Digs into Pleading Requirements in Tossing Three Misrepresentation-Based Claims.

Mack Sperling discusses the NC Business Court’s decision in Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, et al. v. AG Insurance SA/NV, et al., 17 CVS 5594, opinion (N.C. Super. Ct. Dec. 6, 2019), which rejected application of the apex doctrine limiting the ability to depositions of high-ranking corporate executives. The NC Business Court Deals With The Apex Doctrine (Again).