N.M. Stat. Ann. § 53-15-3
A. Any shareholder of a corporation may dissent from, and obtain payment for the shareholder's shares in the event of, any of the following corporate actions:
(4) any amendment of the articles of incorporation which materially and adversely affects the rights appurtenant to the shares of the dissenting shareholder in that it:
B. (1) A record holder of shares may assert dissenters' rights as to less than all of the shares registered in his name only if the holder dissents with respect to all the shares beneficially owned by any one person and discloses the name and address of the person or persons on whose behalf the holder dissents. In that event, his rights shall be determined as if the shares as to which he has dissented and his other shares were registered in the names of different shareholders.
History: 1953 Comp., § 51-28-3, enacted by Laws 1967, ch. 81, § 77; 1975, ch. 64, § 36; 1983, ch. 304, § 60.
Compiler's notes. — This section is derived from Section 80 of the ABA Model Business Corporation Act.
The 1983 amendment, effective June 17, 1983, added "and obtain payment for shares" at the end of the catchline, inserted "and obtain payment for the shareholder's shares in the event of" in the introductory language of Subsection A, inserted "except as provided in Subsection C of this section" in Paragraph (1) of Subsection A, added Paragraphs (3) to (5) of Subsection A, designated former Subsection B as present Paragraph (1) of Subsection B, rewrote the first sentence of Paragraph (1) of Subsection B, which formerly read: "A shareholder may dissent as to less than all of the shares registered in his name," added Paragraph (2) of Subsection B, substituted "The right to obtain payment under" for "The provisions of" at the beginning of Subsection C, and added Subsection D.
Duty of majority shareholder. — A majority shareholder, as well as an officer or director of a close corporation, when purchasing the stock of a minority shareholder, has a fiduciary duty to disclose material facts affecting the value of the stock which are known to the purchasing shareholder, officer or director by virtue of their position, but not known to the selling shareholder. Walta v. Gallegos Law Firm, P.C., 2002-NMCA-015, 131 N.M. 544, 40 P.3d 449, cert. denied, 131 N.M. 619, 41 P.3d 345.
Appraisal is not exclusive remedy. — Where the interest of a non-controlling shareholder in a closely-held corporation is eliminated by the controlling shareholders through the use of a freeze out merger transaction, the determination of the fair cash value of the non-controlling shareholder’s shares in an appraisal proceeding does not provide the exclusive remedy and does not eliminate common law actions for breach of fiduciary duty. McMinn v. MBF Operating Acquisition Corp., 2007-NMSC-040, 142 N.M. 160, 164 P.3d 41.
Where plaintiff, who was a shareholder in a corporation that had been merged out of existence, claimed that the merger was unfair and resulted in an unfair share price paid to shareholders because the directors of the corporation breached fiduciary duties by engaging in self-interested negotiations with potential buyers of the corporation, devaluing the corporation for personal gain, and conducting unfair and misleading voting processes, plaintiff’s claim fell within the exception for unlawful or fraudulent corporate action. Rael v. Page, 2009-NMCA-123, 147 N.M. 306, 222 P.3d 678, cert. denied, 2009-NMCERT-009, 147 N.M. 421, 224 P.3d 648.
Right of appraisal not adequate. — Where plaintiff, who was a shareholder in a corporation that had been merged out of existence, claimed that the merger was unfair and resulted in an unfair share price paid to shareholders because the directors of the corporation breached fiduciary duties by engaging in self-interested negotiations with potential buyers of the corporation, devaluing the corporation for personal gain, and conducting unfair and misleading voting processes, plaintiff’s claim should not have been dismissed because, to the extent plaintiff had been injured as alleged, mere valuation would not, as a matter of law, provide adequate redress. Rael v. Page, 2009-NMCA-123, 147 N.M. 306, 222 P.3d 678, cert. denied, 2009-NMCERT-009, 147 N.M. 421, 224 P.3d 648.
Law reviews. — For article, "1975 Amendments to the New Mexico Business Corporation Act," see 6 N.M.L. Rev. 57 (1975).
For article, "1983 Amendments to the New Mexico Business Corporation Act and Related Statutes," see 14 N.M.L. Rev. 371 (1984).
For article, "Too Close for Comfort: Minority Shareholder Litigation Against Close Corporations after McMinn v. MBF Operating Acquisition Corp. and The Peters Corp. v. N.M. Banquest Investors Corp.," see 39 N.M. L. Rev. 319 (2009).
For note, "The Fiduciary Duties Owed in a New Mexico Closely Held Corporation: Walta v. Gallegos Law Firm, P.C.," see 34 N.M. L. R.ev. 181 (2004)
Am. Jur. 2d, A.L.R. and C.J.S. references. — 18A Am. Jur. 2d Corporations § 836; 19 Am. Jur. 2d Corporations §§ 2574, 2582 to 2586.
19 C.J.S. Corporations §§ 799 to 801.