In re Security Fin. Company

Supreme Court of California · 1957 · Corporations

317 P.2d 1 (Cal. 1957)

Updated August 22, 2026

CorporationsVoluntary dissolutionJudicial supervision of winding upsection 4600section 4607voluntary winding upgood faithequitable limitations

Facts

Security Finance Company was closely held, with Rouda owning 50 percent of the voting common stock and the Crockers owning the other 50 percent; corporate control required unanimous consent. Rouda managed the business full time, but after disputes over salary, dividends, stock sale, and sale of the business, the Crockers refused to buy his stock, sell theirs, or consent to a sale unless Rouda paid them $100,000. Rouda pledged his stock to a bank and promised to repay the loan from a sale of the business or, failing that, from his distributive share after dissolution. He then executed written consent to voluntary dissolution and petitioned for judicial supervision, alleging serious deadlock and inability to obtain unanimous consent.

Issue

Whether a holder of 50 percent of a corporation's voting power had validly effected a voluntary dissolution under Corporations Code section 4600 so that the superior court could assume jurisdiction under section 4607. More specifically, the question was whether Rouda's decision to dissolve was made in good faith and whether court supervision of the winding up was proper.

Rule

Shareholders representing 50 percent of the voting power do not have an absolute right under Corporations Code section 4600 to dissolve a corporation. A dissolution election under section 4600 is the corporation's election and is subject to equitable good-faith limitations; a shareholder with the requisite voting power may protect his investment by dissolution when alternative methods are foreclosed, no advantage is secured over other shareholders, and no rights of third parties will be adversely affected. A court has jurisdiction under section 4607 only if the corporation is in the process of voluntary winding up, which requires a valid election to wind up under section 4600.

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

Granite Harbor Lending, a closely held corporation in Sacramento, has two voting shareholders: Nina Patel and Owen Mercer, each holding 50% of the voting power. For three years, Owen has blocked every proposal that would let Nina realize value from her investment—higher dividends, a buyout by either side, and a sale of the business—while insisting the company continue unchanged; Nina then signs a written consent electing dissolution, which would distribute assets pro rata and does not appear to prejudice creditors.

If Owen challenges the election to dissolve, what is the strongest argument that the dissolution is valid?

Explanation. The majority held that 50% voting power does not create an absolute right to dissolve. A dissolution election is subject to equitable good-faith limitations. It is valid where the shareholder uses dissolution to protect her investment after other reasonable methods are blocked, gains no special advantage over the other shareholders, and third-party rights are not adversely affected.