Opinion ID: 1959565
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Dismissal of the Majority Shareholders' Counterclaims

Text: A motion to dismiss tests the legal sufficiency of a party's claims. Richards v. Soucy, 610 A.2d 268, 270 (Me.1992). For the purposes of a 12(b)(6) motion, the material allegations must be taken as admitted. Larrabee v. Penobscot Frozen Foods, Inc., 486 A.2d 97, 98 (Me.1984). In reviewing a dismissal, we examine the claims in the light most favorable to the claimant to determine whether they allege the elements of a cause of action or allege facts that could entitle him to relief under some legal theory. Id. at 99. A 12(b)(6) dismissal should only occur when it appears beyond doubt that a [claimant] is entitled to no relief under any set of facts that he might prove in support of his claim. Hall v. Board of Envtl. Protection, 498 A.2d 260, 266 (Me.1985). The Superior Court dismissed the majority shareholders' counterclaim on the ground that they lacked standing, meaning that they were required to prosecute their claims in a derivative action. See M.R.Civ.P. 23A. Moore argues that this dismissal was proper because the majority shareholders failed to show that they suffered a particularized injury with respect to any of their claims. We disagree. As an initial matter, the majority shareholders were opposing a motion to dismiss. Since they might be able to show that they suffered a particularized injury, it is not beyond doubt that they would be entitled to no relief under any of their claims. Moreover, section 716 clearly provides that both directors and officers shall exercise their powers and discharge their duties in good faith on behalf of the shareholders. It is undisputed that Moore served as an officer of Maine Industrial. Therefore he owed a fiduciary duty to the majority shareholders. 13-A M.R.S.A. § 716. See also Atlantic Acoustical v. Moreira, 348 A.2d 263, 267 (Me.1975) (in general, a director or officer stands in a fiduciary relationship to his corporation and its shareholders). The majority shareholders' cancellation of Moore's shares was based on their allegation that Moore did not pay for his stock. Title 13-A M.R.S.A. § 507(3)(B) (1981) provides that unpaid-for shares may be cancelled, and the holders thereof prevented from exercising the rights of a shareholder, in an action by or in the right of the corporation, its shareholders or its creditors. By virtue of this express statutory language, the majority shareholders had standing to bring an action to cancel Moore's shares. We conclude that the court erred in dismissing their counterclaim. The entry is: Judgment affirmed with respect to the conversion claim; in all other respects, judgment vacated. Remanded for further proceedings consistent with the opinion herein. All concurring.