Maine Revised Statutes

Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 31, § 1632 (2026)

Derivative action

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ME-LEGlegislature.maine.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
A member may maintain a derivative action to enforce a right of a limited liability company if:   [PL 2009, c. 629, Pt. A, §2 (NEW); PL 2009, c. 629, Pt. A, §3 (AFF).]
1.  Demand.  The member first makes a demand on the limited liability company to take suitable action, and the limited liability company does not take suitable action within a reasonable time; or  
[PL 2011, c. 113, Pt. A, §20 (AMD).]
2.  Futility of demand.  A demand under subsection 1 would be futile.  
[PL 2009, c. 629, Pt. A, §2 (NEW); PL 2009, c. 629, Pt. A, §3 (AFF).]
SECTION HISTORY
PL 2009, c. 629, Pt. A, §2 (NEW). PL 2009, c. 629, Pt. A, §3 (AFF). PL 2011, c. 113, Pt. A, §20 (AMD).
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 4 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 2014–2023 · leading case: Gleichman v. Scarcelli (Me. Super. Ct 2019).
Gleichman v. Scarcelli (Me. Super. Ct 2019). “31 M.R.S.A. §§ 1632, 1633(1). Only members may apply for judicial dissolution oflimited liability companies.”
Marston v. Nappi (Me. Super. Ct 2023). “Breach of Fiduciary Duty 4 Marston seeks to dismiss Nappi and Torrey's first Count on the grounds that any claim against Marston for damage to Imperial must be brought as a derivative action in accordance with 31 M.R.S. § 1632 (2022) and Maine Rule of Civil Procedure ("M.”
Beaudry v. Harding (Me. Super. Ct 2014). “See 31 M.R.S. § 1632 (2013). Beaudry has relied on this provision in his complaint.”
Morton v. Burr (Me. Super. Ct 2014). “§ 1631 and a derivative action pursuant to 31 M.R.S. §§ 1632, 1637 against Burr, Inc.”
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.