Maine Revised Statutes

Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 13-C, § 809 (2026)

Removal of directors by judicial proceeding

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ME-LEGlegislature.maine.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
1.  Removal by Superior Court.  The Superior Court of the county where a corporation's principal office or, if there is no principal office in this State, of Kennebec County may remove a director of the corporation from office in a proceeding commenced by or in the right of the corporation if the court finds that:  
A. The director engaged in fraudulent conduct with respect to the corporation or its shareholders, grossly abused the position of director or intentionally inflicted harm on the corporation; and   [PL 2001, c. 640, Pt. A, §2 (NEW); PL 2001, c. 640, Pt. B, §7 (AFF).]
B. Considering the director's course of conduct and the inadequacy of other available remedies, removal would be in the best interest of the corporation.   [PL 2001, c. 640, Pt. A, §2 (NEW); PL 2001, c. 640, Pt. B, §7 (AFF).]
[PL 2007, c. 323, Pt. C, §14 (AMD); PL 2007, c. 323, Pt. G, §4 (AFF).]
2.  Comply with requirements.  A shareholder proceeding on behalf of the corporation under subsection 1 shall comply with all of the requirements of chapter 7, subchapter IV, except section 752, subsection 1.  
[PL 2001, c. 640, Pt. A, §2 (NEW); PL 2001, c. 640, Pt. B, §7 (AFF).]
3.  Bar from reelection.  The court, in addition to removing the director, may bar the director from reelection for a period prescribed by the court.  
[PL 2001, c. 640, Pt. A, §2 (NEW); PL 2001, c. 640, Pt. B, §7 (AFF).]
4.  Other relief.  This section does not limit the equitable powers of the court to order other relief.  
[PL 2001, c. 640, Pt. A, §2 (NEW); PL 2001, c. 640, Pt. B, §7 (AFF).]
SECTION HISTORY
PL 2001, c. 640, §A2 (NEW). PL 2001, c. 640, §B7 (AFF). PL 2007, c. 323, Pt. C, §14 (AMD). PL 2007, c. 323, Pt. G, §4 (AFF).
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 1 case (1 in the last 5 years), 2021–2021 · leading case: Kapothanasis v. Kapothanasis (Me. Super. Ct 2021).
Kapothanasis v. Kapothanasis (Me. Super. Ct 2021). “tract (Life Insurance Premiums) on behalf of Paul Kapothanasis; Count VIII: Promissory Estoppel (Life Insurance Premiums) on behalf of Paul Kapothanasis; Count IX: Unjust Enrichment (Life Insurance Premiums) on behalf of Paul Kapothanasis; Count X: Punitive Damages on behalf of…”
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.