Your Trusted Partner in Personal Injury & Workers' Compensation
Call Now: 904-383-7448
(Code 1981, §14-3-727, enacted by Ga. L. 1991, p. 465, § 1; Ga. L. 2004, p. 508, § 38.)
This section is based on the Model Act and on its Business Code counterpart, section 14-2-724.
(Code 1981, §14-3-730, enacted by Ga. L. 1991, p. 465, § 1.)
This section is based on the Model Act and on its Business Code counterpart, section 14-2-731. It permits written voting agreements between or among members and provides that such agreements may be valid for up to twenty years. Voting agreements among members of corporations described in section 14-3-1302(a)(2) must be for a reasonable purpose that is not inconsistent with the corporation's purposes.
As used in this part, the term:
(Code 1981, §14-3-740, enacted by Ga. L. 1991, p. 465, § 1.)
Part 4 of article 7 of the Code is based on the Model Act and on its counterpart in the Business Code. Prior law did not address the issue of derivative actions involving nonprofit corporations. The Model Act, which was approved prior to amendments to the Revised Model Business Corporation Act concerning derivative actions, contains a single section authorizing derivative actions. This part adopts the approach taken by the Revised Model Business Corporation Act and by the Business Code, with refinements to reflect the different constituencies.
"Member" is specially defined for purposes of this part to include persons whose special interest in the corporation should give them standing to bring a derivative proceeding. Those persons include anyone entitled to some portion of the corporation's property upon dissolution and anyone specifically designated in the corporation's articles or bylaws as having standing to bring a derivative proceeding. Remote contingent interests in a corporation's property are insufficient to qualify a person as a "member" for purposes of this part.
Total Results: 5
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 2022-06-01
Snippet: discretion. See Reed v. State, 291 Ga. 10, 13-14 (3) (727 SE2d 112) (2012). Here, the trial court
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 2018-05-07
Citation: 814 S.E.2d 401
Snippet: standard of review." Reed v. State, 291 Ga. 10, 14 (3), 727 S.E.2d 112 (2012) (citation and punctuation omitted)
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 2017-03-06
Citation: 300 Ga. 694, 797 S.E.2d 872, 2017 WL 875045, 2017 Ga. LEXIS 159
Snippet: of discretion. See Reed v. State, 291 Ga. 10, 14 (3) (727 SE2d 112) (2012). OCGA § 24-8-804 (b) (1) (“Rule
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 2016-05-09
Citation: 299 Ga. 32, 785 S.E.2d 879, 2016 WL 2619615, 2016 Ga. LEXIS 349
Snippet: See Reed v. State, 291 Ga. 10, 13-14 (3) (727 SE2d 112) (2012) (explaining our standard of
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 2012-10-15
Citation: 291 Ga. 705, 733 S.E.2d 280, 2012 Fulton County D. Rep. 3167, 2012 WL 4856997, 2012 Ga. LEXIS 775
Snippet: clearly erroneous.” Reed v. State, 291 Ga. 10, 14 (3) (727 SE2d 112) (2012) (citation and punctuation omitted)