Court Rejects Claim to Remove Board Member
A court has dismissed a claim seeking theโข removal of aโฃ boardโ member,finding insufficient โขevidence to support the allegations. The case centered around accusations against Pucca, who held 10%โฃ of the company’s share capital.
The court persistent that Ozolins, โฃthe claimant who controlled โ90% of the โคshare capital and served as chairman of the โฃboard, failed to prove that Pucca had not fulfilled theirโค obligation to pay for their share. Furthermore, โevenโ if non-payment were established, itโ would not automatically justify removal under โArticleโค 195 ofโค the Commercial Law.
Ozolins also โคdid not present evidence of anyโข breach โof duty by Pucca. The court noted it was impossible to isolate Ozolins’โ claims โand determine โif pucca acted deliberately, abusively, or with the intent to harmโ the company’s interests. โ
The court emphasized that even if some of theโฃ claims were substantiated,it โwouldn’t necessarily warrant โฃremoval. A disadvantageous action, such as, would onlyโฃ be grounds for removal if it stemmedโ from negligence,โค not โ from intentional and systematic efforts to undermine the company.
The judgment also highlighted that Ozolins, as chairman, โขhad the authority to initiate Pucca’s removal due to โpoor performance, โขbut never did so. Importantly, Ozolins had full access to โcompany documents but never requestedโ them, and never disputed โthe accuracy of the company’s annual reviews.
