Village corporation may not discriminate between shareholders when distributing corporate assets
In 1992 the plaintiffs amended their complaint, asserting class action claims. Kake moved for summary judgment on statute of limitations grounds. Superior Court Judge Thomas M. Jahnke ruled that each payment to favored shareholders gave rise to a separate cause of action, subject to a separate limitations analysis; that the six-year statute expressed in AS 09.10.050 governed this case; that the statute barred claims accruing more than six years before the case was filed, that is claims accruing before August 31, 1984; and that claims held by minors were tolled pursuant to the tolling provisions of AS 09.10.140.
In the spring of 1993, the parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment on remaining liability issues. At roughly the same time, by stipulation, the plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint which they claim expanded the class to include all shareholders who had been discriminated against, whether or not they participated in the plan.
The case was set for trial on June 28, 1993. Just before trial, the trial judge, Walter L. Carpeneti, ruled in the plaintiffs favor on the summary judgment motions, holding �as a matter of law payments both to beneficiaries of shareholders and to shareholders directly under the challenged plan are distributions under state law, that the payments violate the rule of uniformity and that the defendant is therefore liable to plaintiffs.
Adds precedent that influences how ANCSA corporations, regulators, and shareholders interpret governance rights and remedies.