:watermark(https://f.pmo.ee//logos/4132/d583334e07b643b158b745b655f05032.png,-2p,-2p,0,18,none):format(webp)/nginx/o/2025/08/27/17105607t1hbd86.jpg)
Court Rejects Claim to Remove Board Member
A court has dismissed a claim seeking the removal of a board member,finding insufficient evidence to support the allegations. The case centered around accusations against Pucca, who held 10% of the company’s share capital.
The court persistent that Ozolins, the claimant who controlled 90% of the share capital and served as chairman of the board, failed to prove that Pucca had not fulfilled their obligation to pay for their share. Furthermore, even if non-payment were established, it would not automatically justify removal under Article 195 of the Commercial Law.
Ozolins also did not present evidence of any breach of duty by Pucca. The court noted it was impossible to isolate Ozolins’ claims and determine if pucca acted deliberately, abusively, or with the intent to harm the company’s interests.
The court emphasized that even if some of the claims were substantiated,it wouldn’t necessarily warrant removal. A disadvantageous action, such as, would only be grounds for removal if it stemmed from negligence, not from intentional and systematic efforts to undermine the company.
The judgment also highlighted that Ozolins, as chairman, had the authority to initiate Pucca’s removal due to poor performance, but never did so. Importantly, Ozolins had full access to company documents but never requested them, and never disputed the accuracy of the company’s annual reviews.
