Maine Revised Statutes

Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 13-C, § 831 (2026)

Standards of conduct for directors

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ME-LEGlegislature.maine.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
1.  Basic standard of conduct.  Each member of the corporation's board of directors when discharging the duties of a director shall act:  
A. In good faith; and   [PL 2001, c. 640, Pt. A, §2 (NEW); PL 2001, c. 640, Pt. B, §7 (AFF).]
B. In a manner the director reasonably believes to be in the best interests of the corporation.   [PL 2001, c. 640, Pt. A, §2 (NEW); PL 2001, c. 640, Pt. B, §7 (AFF).]
[PL 2001, c. 640, Pt. A, §2 (NEW); PL 2001, c. 640, Pt. B, §7 (AFF).]
2.  General standard of care.  The members of the corporation's board of directors or a committee of the board, when becoming informed in connection with their decision-making function or devoting attention to their oversight function, shall discharge their duties with the care that a person in a like position would reasonably believe appropriate under similar circumstances.  
[PL 2001, c. 640, Pt. A, §2 (NEW); PL 2001, c. 640, Pt. B, §7 (AFF).]
3.  Permitted delegation.  In discharging board or committee duties, a director who does not have knowledge that makes reliance unwarranted is entitled to rely on the performance by any of the persons specified in subsection 5, paragraph A or C to whom the board may have delegated, formally or informally by course of conduct, the authority or duty to perform one or more of the board's functions that are delegable under applicable law.  
[PL 2001, c. 640, Pt. A, §2 (NEW); PL 2001, c. 640, Pt. B, §7 (AFF).]
4.  Information provided by others.  In discharging board or committee duties, a director who does not have knowledge that makes reliance unwarranted is entitled to rely on information, opinions, reports or statements, including financial statements and other financial data, prepared or presented by any of the persons specified in subsection 5.  
[PL 2001, c. 640, Pt. A, §2 (NEW); PL 2001, c. 640, Pt. B, §7 (AFF).]
5.  Standard for reliance.  A director is entitled in accordance with subsection 3 or 4 to rely on:  
A. One or more officers or employees of the corporation whom the director reasonably believes to be reliable and competent in the functions performed or the information, opinions, reports or statements provided;   [PL 2001, c. 640, Pt. A, §2 (NEW); PL 2001, c. 640, Pt. B, §7 (AFF).]
B. Legal counsel, public accountants or other persons retained by the corporation as to matters involving skills or expertise the director reasonably believes are matters within the particular person's professional or expert competence or as to which the particular person merits confidence; or   [PL 2001, c. 640, Pt. A, §2 (NEW); PL 2001, c. 640, Pt. B, §7 (AFF).]
C. A committee of the board of directors of which the director is not a member if the director reasonably believes the committee merits confidence.   [PL 2001, c. 640, Pt. A, §2 (NEW); PL 2001, c. 640, Pt. B, §7 (AFF).]
[PL 2001, c. 640, Pt. A, §2 (NEW); PL 2001, c. 640, Pt. B, §7 (AFF).]
6.  Interests of other constituencies.  In discharging their duties, the directors and officers of the corporation may, in considering the best interests of the corporation and of its shareholders, consider the effects of any action upon employees, suppliers and customers of the corporation, communities in which offices or other establishments of the corporation are located and all other pertinent factors.  
[PL 2001, c. 640, Pt. A, §2 (NEW); PL 2001, c. 640, Pt. B, §7 (AFF).]
7.  Disclosure.  In discharging board or committee duties, a director shall disclose, or cause to be disclosed, to the other board or committee members information not already known by them but known by the director to be material to the discharge of their decision-making or oversight functions, except that disclosure is not required to the extent that the director reasonably believes that doing so would violate a duty imposed under law, a legally enforceable obligation of confidentiality or a professional ethics rule.  
[PL 2007, c. 289, §16 (NEW).]
SECTION HISTORY
PL 2001, c. 640, §A2 (NEW). PL 2001, c. 640, §B7 (AFF). PL 2007, c. 289, §16 (AMD).
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 6 cases, 2011–2020 · leading case: Dev. Specialists, Inc. v. Kaplan, 574 B.R. 1 (D. Me. 2017).
Dev. Specialists, Inc. v. Kaplan, 574 B.R. 1 (D. Me. 2017). · cites it 2× “The MBCA also imposes a fiduciary duty of good faith and loyalty on members of a corporation’s board of directors, namely that the directors must act "[i]n good faith,” 13-C M.R.S.A. § 831(1)(A), and "[i]n a manner the director reasonably believes to be in the best interests of…”
Dev. Specialists, Inc. ex rel. Irving/Prime Creditors' Trust v. Kaplan (In re Irving Tanning Co.), 555 B.R. 70 (Bankr. D. Me. 2016). · cites it 2× “If the Shareholder Defendants’ actions in connection with the 2007 Transaction did not constitute actual or constructive fraudulent transfers, as I have concluded above, the Director Defendants did not violate the fiduciary duties imposed upon them by 13-C M.R.S.A. §§ 831 and…”
Alan Miller v. Steve N. Miller, 2017 ME 155 (Me. 2017). “§ 743(8)(A), (B) (2016), stood as fiduciaries of the corporation, see 13-C M.R.S. § 831(1), (2) (2016). Alan takes issue with the trial court’s determination that the doctrine of adverse domination does not apply to toll the statute of limitations in this case because “the…”
Voisine v. Berube, 38 A.3d 310 (Me. 2011). “640, § A-2 (effective July 1, 2003) (codified at 13-C M.R.S. § 831 (2010)). The court properly applied 13-A M.”
Cox v. Carefree Window & Siding Co., Inc. (Me. Super. Ct 2020). · cites it 3× “" 13-C M.R.S. § 831 (2) (2018). In order to prevail on a breach of fiduciary duty claim, the party must demonstrate that the alleged breach proximately caused the damages for which the plaintiff seeks to recover.”
Clavet v. Dean (Me. Super. Ct 2020). “The operating agreements for the two LLCs are attached respectively as Exhibit 1 and Exhibit 2 to Mr.”
Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 13-C, § 831(1): 3 cases
Alan Miller v. Steve N. Miller, 2017 ME 155 (Me. 2017). “§ 743(8)(A), (B) (2016), stood as fiduciaries of the corporation, see 13-C M.R.S. § 831(1), (2) (2016). Alan takes issue with the trial court’s determination that the doctrine of adverse domination does not apply to toll the statute of limitations in this case because “the…”
Clavet v. Dean (Me. Super. Ct 2020). “The operating agreements for the two LLCs are attached respectively as Exhibit 1 and Exhibit 2 to Mr.”
Cox v. Carefree Window & Siding Co., Inc. (Me. Super. Ct 2020). “" 13-C M.R.S. § 831 (2) (2018). In order to prevail on a breach of fiduciary duty claim, the party must demonstrate that the alleged breach proximately caused the damages for which the plaintiff seeks to recover.”
Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 13-C, § 831(1)(A): 1 case
Dev. Specialists, Inc. v. Kaplan, 574 B.R. 1 (D. Me. 2017). “The MBCA also imposes a fiduciary duty of good faith and loyalty on members of a corporation’s board of directors, namely that the directors must act "[i]n good faith,” 13-C M.R.S.A. § 831(1)(A), and "[i]n a manner the director reasonably believes to be in the best interests of…”
Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 13-C, § 831(2): 2 cases
Dev. Specialists, Inc. v. Kaplan, 574 B.R. 1 (D. Me. 2017). “The MBCA also imposes a fiduciary duty of good faith and loyalty on members of a corporation’s board of directors, namely that the directors must act "[i]n good faith,” 13-C M.R.S.A. § 831(1)(A), and "[i]n a manner the director reasonably believes to be in the best interests of…”
Dev. Specialists, Inc. ex rel. Irving/Prime Creditors' Trust v. Kaplan (In re Irving Tanning Co.), 555 B.R. 70 (Bankr. D. Me. 2016). “If the Shareholder Defendants’ actions in connection with the 2007 Transaction did not constitute actual or constructive fraudulent transfers, as I have concluded above, the Director Defendants did not violate the fiduciary duties imposed upon them by 13-C M.R.S.A. §§ 831 and…”
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.