Quote:
Posted By KerryL1 on 07/27/2020 6:09 PM
So, Augustine, it sounds like the first thing Jack & his director fried must do is appoint more directors if any Owners are willing to serve. Is that right?
Respectfully, I think you know how they should proceed as well as I do: Per the terms of the Trust and per applicable statutes. Article III, Section A of the Trust speaks of appointments to fill vacancies and court action by members, if needed, to fill these vacancies. But Article III, Section A closes with:
--- Start Art. III, Section A, last paragraph ---
"The foregoing provisions of this Section to the contrary notwithstanding, despite any vacancy in the office of Trustee, however caused and for whatever duration, the remaining or surviving Trustees, subject to the provisions of the immediately following Section, shall continue to exercise and discharge all of the powers, discretions and duties hereby conferred or imposed upon the Trustees."
--- End Art. III, Section A, last paragraph ---
Section B states, in a few sentences, that the remaining Trustees are to act via a majority vote.
I do not see anything in Massachusetts statutes overriding the above.
As far as I am concerned, MarkW8's assertion that business cannot be conducted by this board assumes facts not in evidence.
If you are concerned about the following statement:
Quote:
Posted By JackS15 on 07/27/2020 2:30 PM
Now that I have majority people on my side I want to change management companies.
then I agree with your concern.
But under Article III, Section A, whatever board exists at this point is entitled, by majority vote, to order the management company to turn over the keys or else. A manager responding, "I do not have to, because this is not a lawful board," like MarkW18 insists, is itching to get fired sooner rather than later.