Note this is only true for companies registered under US law, especially under Delaware law. (And UK law to a lesser extent)
Which puts the onus of proof on the minority shareholders, to demonstrate they have a bonafide need for such information.
Most US states do so, which ironically makes the US one of the most authoritarian and dictatorial countries when it comes to minority shareholder rights.
Compare it with say Japan or China where the onus of proof is on the company to demonstrate why the requests of minority shareholders should be denied.
And the only real restriction is that any group of shareholders making such requests have to own at least 3% to 5% of the total shares.
Which puts the onus of proof on the minority shareholders, to demonstrate they have a bonafide need for such information.
Most US states do so, which ironically makes the US one of the most authoritarian and dictatorial countries when it comes to minority shareholder rights.
Compare it with say Japan or China where the onus of proof is on the company to demonstrate why the requests of minority shareholders should be denied.
And the only real restriction is that any group of shareholders making such requests have to own at least 3% to 5% of the total shares.