Company: RNST
Filing Date: 2025-04-11
Form Type: S-4 POS
Source: 0000715072-25-000128
Chunk: 4

Company: RENASANT CORP
Filing Date: 2025-04-11
Form: S-4 POS
Chunk 4
---
. Code Ann. Section 81-5-105(1), the duties of a director or officer of a bank or bank holding company to the bank or bank holding company and its shareholders are to discharge the director’s or officer’s duties in good faith and with the diligence, care, judgment and skill as provided in subsection (2). Subsection (2) provides that a director or officer of a bank or bank holding company cannot be held personally liable for money damages to a corporation or its shareholders unless the officer or director acts in a grossly negligent manner or engages in conduct that demonstrates a greater disregard of the duty of care than gross negligence. In addition, Miss. Code Ann. Section 81-5-105(4) provides that the provisions of Miss. Code Ann. Section 81-5-105 are the sole and exclusive law governing the relation and liability of directors and officers to their bank or bank holding company, or their successor, or to the shareholders thereof, or to any other person or entity.

If the MBCA were applicable in defining the fiduciary duties of officers and directors, Miss. Code Ann. Section 79-4-8.31 provides that a director is not liable to a corporation or its shareholders for any decision to take or not take action, or any failure to take any action, as a director, unless the party asserting liability proves certain matters. The party must show that (1) the director was a party to or had a direct or indirect financial interest in a transaction, which transaction was not otherwise approved in accordance with the MBCA, and (2) the challenged conduct consisted or was a result of (a) action not in good faith; (b) a decision which the director did not reasonably believe

to be in the best interests of the corporation or as to which the director was not appropriately informed; (c) a lack of objectivity, due to familial, financial or business relationships, or a lack of independence, due to the director’s domination or control by another interested person, where such relationship, domination or control could reasonably be expected to have affected the director’s judgment respecting the challenged conduct in a manner adverse to the corporation, and after a reasonable expectation to such effect has been established, the director cannot demonstrate that he or she reasonably believed the challenged conduct to be in the best interests of the corporation; (d) the director’s sustained failure to stay informed about the corporation’s business and affairs or otherwise discharge his or her oversight functions; or