O.C.G.A.

O.C.G.A. § 14-2-853 (2019)

Advance for expenses

✓ O.C.G.A. — 2019 edition (Public.Resource.Org Release 73)
Code text and O.C.G.A. statutory annotations on this page reflect the 2019 Official Code of Georgia Annotated (Public.Resource.Org Release 73, 2019-08-21; public domain per Georgia v. Public.Resource.Org, 2020). The Syfert case-law annotations in Notes of Decisions, below, are current.
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section GA-LEGlegis.ga.gov (official) JustiaJustia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) A corporation may, before final disposition of a proceeding, advance funds to pay for or reimburse the reasonable expenses incurred by a director who is a party to a proceeding because he or she is a director if he or she delivers to the corporation:

(1) A written affirmation of his or her good faith belief that he or she has met the relevant standard of conduct described in Code Section 14-2-851 or that the proceeding involves conduct for which liability has been eliminated under a provision of the articles of incorporation as authorized by paragraph (4) of subsection (b) of Code Section 14-2-202; and

CORPORATIONS & PARTNERSHIPS

(2) His or her written undertaking to repay any funds advanced if it is ultimately determined that the director is not entitled to indemnification under this part.

(b) The undertaking required by paragraph (2) of subsection (a) of this Code section must be an unlimited general obligation of the director but need not be secured and may be accepted without reference to the financial ability of the director to make repayment.

(c) Authorizations under this Code section shall be made:

(1) By the board of directors:

(A) When there are two or more disinterested directors, by a majority vote of all the disinterested directors (a majority of whom shall for such purpose constitute a quorum) or by a majority of the members of a committee of two or more disinterested directors appointed by such a vote; or

(B) When there are fewer than two disinterested directors, by the vote necessary for action by the board in accordance with subsection (c) of Code Section 14-2-824, in which authorization directors who do not qualify as disinterested directors may participate; or

(2) By the shareholders, but shares owned or voted under the control of a director who at the time does not qualify as a disinterested director with respect to the proceeding may not be voted on the authorization.

History

(Code 1981, § 14-2-853, enacted by Ga. L. 1988, p. 1070, § 1; Ga. L. 1996, p. 1203, § 5.)

Annotations

Law reviews. - For annual survey article discussing advancement of direc-

tors’ expenses, see 46 Mercer L. Rev. 71 (1994).

COMMENT Source: Model Act, § 8.53. Section 14-2-853 establishes a workable standard for advancement of expenses to directors facing protracted and costly litigation as a result of their service to the corporation: indemnification is permitted when the director assures the corporation of his belief that he has met applicable standards of conduct and promises to repay funds advanced if he ultimately is not entitled to indemnification. This conforms closely to former § 14-2-156(e), and rejects the Model Act requirement of a determination by the board or other decision-making authority that the director is entitled to advances of expenses because the facts then known would not preclude ultimate indemnification. Because all of the board are frequently named defendants, such a determination would involve a conflict of interests, and implementation of the costly procedures of Section 14-2-855 to obtain an authorization. Elimination of these procedural requirements is intended to leave these questions to the general conflict of interest rules of Part 6. Thus authorization of advances may be subject to attack on the ground of unfairness to the corporation unless the director’s affirmation meets the standards of required disclosure of Section 14-2-860(4), and the advance is approved by disinterested directors in compliance

with Section 14-2-862, or by qualified shareholders in compliance with Section

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 2 cases, 1993–2005 · leading case: Serv. Corp. Int'l v. H. M. Patterson & Son, Inc., 434 S.E.2d 455 (Ga. 1993).
Serv. Corp. Int'l v. H. M. Patterson & Son, Inc., 434 S.E.2d 455 (Ga. 1993). · cites it 28× “SCI appeals from the trial court’s ruling denying its motion on the basis that the directors had met the requirements of OCGA § 14-2-853 (a) of the Georgia Business Corporation Code (the “GBCC”).”
Adelphia Commc'ns Corp. v. Rigas (In Re Adelphia Commc'ns Corp.), 323 B.R. 345 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2005). · cites it 2× “However, on the facts in the record, on which the trial court based its finding that the directors met the requirements of OCGA § 14-2-853 (thus encompassing SCI’s challenge to both the reasonableness of the expenses and the directors’ good faith belief that they had acted in a…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.