Nonprofit Director Conflict Transaction Approval Rules in Arizona

Short answer Arizona §§ 10-3860–3863 define a director's conflicting interest by specified knowledge, related persons, and financial links at commitment. In a challenge based on that interest, the statute protects the transaction if qualified directors or qualified members take the specified action, or fairness at commitment is established; a challenger first must prove by clear and convincing evidence that none of those routes applies.
State
Arizona
Statute checked
October 2, 2026
Sources
4 statutes

At a glance

Governing act and covered transactionsNonprofit Corporation Act; corporation, subsidiary, or controlled-entity transaction involving a corporate director (§§ 10-3860(1)-(2), 10-3861)
Interest and related-person triggerDirector/related-person counterparty or material financial link, or significant link through director’s other entity/employer; knowledge at commitment (§ 10-3860(1), (3), (5))
Disclosure and knowledgeDirector discloses nature of conflict and material known transaction facts; limited duty-of-confidentiality substitute for board route (§§ 10-3860(4), 10-3862(A)-(B))
Board or committee approvalMajority, at least two, qualified directors voting after disclosure; qualified-only empowered committee and defined quorum (§ 10-3862(A), (C)-(D))
Member approval and voteNotice, voting information, and disclosure; majority of all qualified membership-interest votes; interested director/related-person interests excluded (§ 10-3863(A)-(C), (E))
Fairness route and timeAlternative fairness judged at time of commitment, meaning consummation or binding obligation with significant withdrawal cost (§§ 10-3861(B)(3), 10-3860(5))
Interested participation and quorumNonqualified director presence/vote does not defeat qualifying board action; qualified-board quorum majority and at least two; member quorum majority of qualified votes (§§ 10-3862(C), 10-3863(B))
Burden, effect, and separate authorizationInterest-based injunction, setting aside, damages/sanctions barred on route; challenger first proves no route by clear and convincing evidence (§ 10-3861(B)-(C))
Special coverage and later changesRelated-person family/trust definition; court may address a director’s nonoutcome-determinative member-vote disclosure failure (§§ 10-3860(3), 10-3863(D))

Requirements one by one

Which interests count

Section 10-3860(1) tests what the director knows at the time of commitment. It covers a director or related person who is a transaction party or has a financially significant link, and, for transactions of board-level character, specified links through another entity, controlling person, or the director's general partner, principal, or employer. Subsection (3) defines related persons through listed family, household, estate, trust, and fiduciary relationships. The definition reaches transactions by a subsidiary or another entity the corporation controls (§ 10-3860(2)).

Disclosure and qualified directors

“Required disclosure” under § 10-3860(4) includes the conflict's existence and nature and known transaction facts an ordinarily prudent person would regard as material. Section 10-3862(A) requires a majority, but at least two, of the qualified directors who vote on the transaction after disclosure or a specified confidentiality substitute. A committee works only if all members are qualified and it was populated through one of the statute's qualified-director routes. Qualification excludes a director with the conflict and one whose listed relationship to the conflicted director would reasonably influence judgment (§ 10-3862(D)).

Qualified-member vote

Section 10-3863(A) requires transaction notice, pre-vote information from the interested director to the vote tabulator about known controlled or beneficially owned interests, and required disclosure to voting members. Approval needs a majority of all votes entitled to be cast by qualified membership interests, not just a majority of votes cast at the meeting. Under subsection (E), known interests beneficially owned or vote-controlled by the conflicted director or a related person are excluded from that qualified pool.

Fairness and statutory effect

Section 10-3861(B)(3) permits a fairness route judged at the time of commitment. Section 10-3860(5) defines that time as consummation or, for a contract, when unilateral withdrawal would cause significant loss, liability, or damage. In the listed member or corporate proceedings, the qualifying routes prevent an injunction, setting aside, damages, or other sanctions because of the director's or an associate's interest (§ 10-3861(B)).

What trips people up

Section 10-3862(C) uses a majority, and at least two, of all qualified directors on the board or committee for its quorum; the approval measure in subsection A instead looks at qualified directors who voted. A nonqualified director's presence or vote does not defeat action that otherwise meets the section. The member quorum is a majority of all qualified votes (§ 10-3863(B)).

If a member vote fails solely because the director did not supply the ownership and control information required by § 10-3863(C), subsection D gives the court a fact-dependent option when the director establishes the omission neither determined nor was intended to influence the outcome. Do not treat that option as automatic validation.

Common questions

Who has the first proof burden in an interest-based challenge?

Under § 10-3861(C), the person seeking an injunction, setting aside, damages, or other sanctions must first prove by clear and convincing evidence that none of subsection B's protections applies.

Does a transaction with a director's interest always need a safe-harbor vote?

No. Section 10-3861(A) also bars the listed interest-based remedies for a transaction that is not a defined director's conflicting interest transaction, even though the director or an associated person has an interest.

Statutes and sources

  • Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 10-3860: definitions of conflicting interest, related person, required disclosure, and time of commitment. Official section text, accessed 2026-10-02.
  • Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 10-3861: interest-based remedy protection and the challenger's clear and convincing proof requirement. Official section text, accessed 2026-10-02.
  • Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 10-3862: qualified director and committee action, quorum, and limited confidentiality substitute. Official section text, accessed 2026-10-02.
  • Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 10-3863: member notice, qualified-interest vote, information disclosure, quorum, and court response to a narrow disclosure failure. Official section text, accessed 2026-10-02.

Source links

Every statute quoted above, linked, with the date we checked it.

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 10-3860 · accessed 2026-10-02
Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 10-3861 · accessed 2026-10-02
Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 10-3862 · accessed 2026-10-02
Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 10-3863 · accessed 2026-10-02
This page gives general legal information about interested-director transactions in an ordinary domestic nonprofit corporation. It is not legal advice. The statute and governing documents may require separate authorization, and whether an interest, disclosure, vote, or transaction is fair depends on facts. Confirm current official law and seek qualified advice for a particular transaction.

What does Arizona law mean for your facts?

You just read the general rule. Ask your own question and see which parts of current Arizona law apply to your situation, with citations you can check.

Opens in Ezel Pro.

  • Starts from the statutes this survey is built on
  • Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
  • Chat, drafting and research in one workspace