2017 ORS 60.594¹
Court costs and counsel fees

(1) The court in an appraisal proceeding commenced under ORS 60.591 (Court action) shall determine all costs of the proceeding, including the reasonable compensation and expenses of appraisers appointed by the court. The court shall assess the costs against the corporation, except that the court may assess costs against all or some of the dissenters, in amounts the court finds equitable, to the extent the court finds the dissenters acted arbitrarily, vexatiously, or not in good faith in demanding payment under ORS 60.587 (Procedure if shareholder dissatisfied with payment or offer).

(2) The court may also assess the fees and expenses of counsel and experts of the respective parties in amounts the court finds equitable:

(a) Against the corporation and in favor of any or all dissenters if the court finds the corporation did not substantially comply with the requirements of ORS 60.561 (Notice of dissenters’ rights) to 60.587 (Procedure if shareholder dissatisfied with payment or offer); or

(b) Against either the corporation or a dissenter, in favor of any other party, if the court finds that the party against whom the fees and expenses are assessed acted arbitrarily, vexatiously or not in good faith with respect to the rights provided by this chapter.

(3) If the court finds that the services of counsel for any dissenter were of substantial benefit to other dissenters similarly situated, and that the fees for those services should not be assessed against the corporation, the court may award to counsel reasonable fees to be paid out of the amount awarded the dissenters who were benefited. [1987 c.52 §137]

Notes of Decisions

Where allega­tions show only disagree­ment as to price, with no allega­tions permitting any inference of self-dealing, fraud, deliberate waste of corporate assets, misrepresenta­tion, or other unlawful con­duct, statutory appraisal is exclusive remedy, even if majority shareholders acted arbitrarily, vexatiously or in bad faith. Stringer v. Car Data Systems, Inc., 314 Or 576, 841 P2d 1183 (1992)

Notes of Decisions

Under Former Similar Statutes (Ors 57.865 to 57.890)

In determining “fair value” of dissenter’s shares under dissenters’ rights statute, applica­tion of mi­nority discount was not appropriate. Columbia Manage­ment Co. v. Wyss, 94 Or App 195, 765 P2d 207 (1988), Sup Ct review denied

Law Review Cita­tions

Under Former Similar Statutes (Ors 57.865 to 57.890)

18 WLR 123 (1982)

In General

30 WLR 373 (1994)

Chapter 60

Notes of Decisions

In General

Owner of corporate shares that does not meet defini­tion for “shareholder” does not have statutorily created inspec­tion rights. Yeoman v. Public Safety Center, Inc., 241 Or App 255, 250 P3d 411 (2011), Sup Ct review denied

Atty. Gen. Opinions

Under Former Similar Statutes (Ors Chapter 58)

This chapter as authorizing partnership of corpora­tion and individual; validity of partnership between a private corpora­tion and an individual when corpora­tion charter so provides, (1972) Vol 36, p 94

Law Review Cita­tions

Under Former Similar Statutes (Ors Chapter 57)

18 WLR 123 (1982)

In General

24 WLR 203, 257, 275 (1988); 30 WLR 407 (1994)

1 Legislative Counsel Committee, CHAPTER 60—Private Corporations, https://­www.­oregonlegislature.­gov/­bills_laws/­ors/­ors060.­html (2017) (last ac­cessed Mar. 30, 2018).
 
2 Legislative Counsel Committee, Annotations to the Oregon Revised Stat­utes, Cumulative Supplement - 2017, Chapter 60, https://­www.­oregonlegislature.­gov/­bills_laws/­ors/­ano060.­html (2017) (last ac­cessed Mar. 30, 2018).
 
3 OregonLaws.org assembles these lists by analyzing references between Sections. Each listed item refers back to the current Section in its own text. The result reveals relationships in the code that may not have otherwise been apparent.