<?xml version="1.0"?>
<law><site_title>Virginia Decoded</site_title><site_url>https://vacode.org</site_url><law_id>346892</law_id><section_number>13.1-727.1</section_number><catch_line>Nonexclusivity</catch_line><edition url="https://vacode.org/2026/" slug="2026" current="TRUE" last_updated="2026-08-02">2026</edition><structure><unit label="title" level="1" order_by="44" identifier="13.1">Corporations</unit><unit label="chapter" level="2" order_by="12" identifier="9">Virginia Stock Corporation Act</unit><unit label="article" level="3" order_by="13" identifier="14">Affiliated Transactions</unit></structure><text>
						<section><p>Except as expressly provided in this article, the provisions of this article shall not limit actions that may be taken, or require the taking of any action, by the board of directors or <span class="dictionary">shareholders</span> with respect to any potential change in <span class="dictionary">control</span> of the <span class="dictionary">corporation</span>. With respect to any action or any failure to act by the board of directors, the provisions of &#xA7;&#xA0;<a class="law" title="General standards of conduct for director" href="/13.1-690/">13.1-690</a> shall apply. In determining the best <span class="dictionary">interests</span> of the <span class="dictionary">corporation</span>, a director may consider the possibility that those <span class="dictionary">interests</span> may best be served by the continued independence of the <span class="dictionary">corporation</span>.</p></section></text><history>1988, c. 442.</history><metadata><court_decisions><item key="0"><name>Berman v. Physical Medicine Associates, Ltd.</name><case_number>99-1043</case_number><citation>225 F.3d 429</citation><date>2000-08-23</date><url>https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2967261/berman-v-physical-medicine-associates-ltd/</url><abstract> .&#x202F;.&#x202F;. Affirmed by published opinion. Judge NIEMEYER wrote the opinion, in which Judge MICHAEL and Judge .&#x202F;.&#x202F;. </abstract><court_html>Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit</court_html></item><item key="1"><name> .&#x202F;.&#x202F;. William S. Berman, M.D. v. Physical Medicine Associates, .&#x202F;.&#x202F;. </name><case_number>99-1043</case_number><citation>225 F.3d 429</citation><date>2000-08-23</date><url>https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/770274/william-s-berman-md-v-physical-medicine-associates-limited/</url><abstract> .&#x202F;.&#x202F;. 225 F.3d 429 (4th Cir. 2000) .&#x202F;.&#x202F;. </abstract><court_html>Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit</court_html></item><item key="2"><name>WLR Foods, Inc. v. Tyson Foods, Inc.</name><case_number>No. 95-1039</case_number><citation>65 F.3d 1172</citation><date>1995-09-22</date><url>https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/7033810/wlr-foods-inc-v-tyson-foods-inc/</url><abstract> .&#x202F;.&#x202F;. Affirmed by published opinion. Judge MURNAGHAN wrote the opinion, in which Chief Judge ERVIN and .&#x202F;.&#x202F;. </abstract><court_html>Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit</court_html></item></court_decisions></metadata></law>
