September 24, 2021

Volume XI, Number 267

Advertisement

September 24, 2021

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

September 23, 2021

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

September 22, 2021

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

Refusal To Acquiesce To Director's Removal Results In Multimillion Dollar Damage Award

A recent holding by the Second District Court of Appeal is a cautionary tale for directors who fail to acquiesce to a director's removal from the board.  Association for Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs v. Macias, 63 Cal. App. 5th 1007 (2021).  The case arose when the board of directors of Association for Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs (ALADS) removed Amando Macias as its president and a director.  The basis for Mr. Macias' removal was that he was no longer qualified to serve as a director.   ALADS is a nonprofit mutual benefit corporation and Corporations Code Section 7221(b) authorizes the a board to declare vacant the office of any director who fails to meet any required qualification that was in effect at the beginning of that director's term. 

Mr. Macias and another director, however, did not "go gentle into that good night".   According to the Court of Appeal, they engaged in "egregious conduct that was not in the best interests of ALADS".   This conduct included creating a "shadow board" and illegally withdrawing $100,000 of ALADS' funds to retain attorneys to assist them in advancing Mr. Macias' claims.   The Court of Appeal found that these and other acts by the two defendants violated their fiduciary duties to ALADS.  Because the Court of Appeal found that Mr. Macias' removal was valid, the Court's holding implicitly assumes that Mr. Macias continued to owe fiduciary duties after his removal.  The Court of Appeal found that the defendants' breach of fiduciary duty caused ALADS millions of dollars in damages.

Must a director simply acquiesce to his or her removal?  No, the Court of Appeal suggests that a proper response to Mr. Macias' removal would have been to file an action in court.  Pursuant to Corporations Code Section 7527, such an action must be filed within nine months of the removal.

© 2010-2021 Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis LLP National Law Review, Volume XI, Number 176
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement

About this Author

Keith Paul Bishop, Corporate Transactions Lawyer, finance securities attorney, Allen Matkins Law Firm
Partner

Keith Bishop works with privately held and publicly traded companies on federal and state corporate and securities transactions, compliance, and governance matters. He is highly-regarded for his in-depth knowledge of the distinctive corporate and regulatory requirements faced by corporations in the state of California.

While many law firms have a great deal of expertise in federal or Delaware corporate law, Keith’s specific focus on California corporate and securities law is uncommon. A former California state regulator of securities and financial institutions, Keith has decades of...

949-851-5428
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement