legal news


Register | Forgot Password

Chopra v. Helio Solutions
Appellant Paul Chopra sought a writ of mandate compelling respondents Helio Solutions, Inc. and its directors to allow him to inspect a large number of corporate records in addition to the corporate records he had already received. He contended that as a minority shareholder he was entitled under Corporations Code section 1601, subdivision (a), to inspect the additional records in order to, among other things, ascertain the present value of the companys stock and to determine whether the directors were acting in the best interests of the minority shareholders. On appeal, Chopra contends that the trial court erred in denying his petition for writ of mandate on the ground that Chopra had failed to meet his burden to show that his inspection requests were reasonably related to his interests as a shareholder. For reasons that Court explain, Court find that sufficient evidence supports the trial courts ruling and therefore Court affirm the order denying Chopras petition for writ of mandate.

Search thread for
Download thread as



Quick Reply

Your Name:
Your Comment:

smiling face wink grin cool nod sticking out tongue raised eyebrow confused shocked shaking head disapproval rolling eyes sad mad

Click an emoji to insert it into your message. You may use BB Codes in your message.
Spam Prevention:

    Home | About Us | Privacy | Subscribe
    © 2025 Fearnotlaw.com The california lawyer directory

  Copyright © 2025 Result Oriented Marketing, Inc.

attorney
scale