BAD FAITH AND THE OPPRESSION REMEDY: UNEASY MARRIAGE, OR AMICABLE DIVORCE?
AbstractCourts have disagreed on the issue of whether a demonstration of bad faith is an essential element of the plaintiffs cause of action under the corporate oppression remedy. The better argument is that bad faith is not an indispensable element of the cause of action. This conclusion receives jurisprudential support in the history of the common law preceding the enactment of the statutory oppression remedy, and in the purpose and function of the oppression remedy. It is also supported normatively, in that the plaintiffs injury and need for corrective action does not depend on the presence or absence of bad faith on the part of the defendant.
Download data is not yet available.