Opinion ID: 1790923
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: whether the mpga has standing to challenge tvepa's ownership in desoto gas company.

Text: ¶ 31. TVEPA argues that the action at hand is essentially an ultra vires challenge, and that, MPGA, therefore, lacks standing to bring the action. See West Bros., Inc. v. Illinois Central R.R., 222 Miss. 335, 75 So.2d 723, 726 (1954) (business competitors have no standing to challenge activities of corporate rivals as being ultra vires); Home Owners' Loan Corp. v. Moore, 184 Miss. 283, 185 So. 253, 255 (1939) (ultra vires act can be challenged only by the sovereign which created the corporation). ¶ 32. MPGA argues that it has not brought an ultra vires challenge, but, rather, that it has challenged TVEPA's actions as illegal. It argues that TVEPA's ownership in Desoto Gas violate Miss.Code Ann. § 77-5-231 and § 77-5-203, which expressly limit electric association activities to the distribution ... of electric energy. Additionally, MPGA argues that one of its members, Dowdle Butane Gas Co., is also a member-owner of TVEPA. MPGA asserts that it has standing to sue because Dowdle Butane has standing to challenge any ultra vires acts of TVEPA. ¶ 33. We begin by noting that Mississippi's standing requirements are quite liberal. Fordice v. Bryan, 651 So.2d 998, 1003 (Miss.1995); Van Slyke v. Bd. of Trustees of State Institutions of Higher Learning, 613 So.2d 872, 875-76 (Miss. 1993). A party may bring a lawsuit if they assert a colorable interest in the subject matter of the litigation or experience an adverse effect from the conduct of the defendant. Dye v. State ex rel. Hale, 507 So.2d 332, 338 (Miss.1987); Frazier v. State, 504 So.2d 675, 691-92 (Miss.1987). In Belhaven Improvement Ass'n, Inc. v. City of Jackson, 507 So.2d 41 (Miss.1987), this Court recognized that an association has standing to bring suit on behalf of its members when: (a) its members would otherwise have standing to sue in their own right; (b) the interests it seeks are germane to the organization's purpose; and (c) neither the claim asserted nor the relief requested, requires the participation of individual members in the lawsuit. Id. at 46. The action may be brought either in the name of the association or in the name of one or more individual members. See White Cypress Lakes Dev. Corp. v. Hertz, 541 So.2d 1031, 1034 (Miss.1989) (citing Belhaven Improvement, 507 So.2d at 45-47). ¶ 34. MPGA's claim is, in essence, a challenge to TVEPA's power to act pursuant to statutory authority and its corporate charter, and, therefore, an ultra vires challenge, as distinguished from an act  malum prohibitum  which is, in and of itself, illegal. See Pendleton v. Williams, 198 So.2d 235, 239 (Miss.1967). Nevertheless, MPGA has standing in its representation of Dowdle Butane. Dowdle Butane is a member of MPGA and TVEPA, purchases electricity from TVEPA, and, as such, is one of the member owners of TVEPA. Miss.Code Ann. § 79-4-3.04(b) (1996) states that a corporation's power to act may be challenged in an action by a shareholder to enjoin the act. Dowdle Butane, arguably, has standing to sue in its own right. MPGA asserts interests relevant to its purpose as Dowdle Butane has been adversely affected by TVEPA's venture into the propane gas business. And, finally, the action may have been brought either in the name of MPGA or in the name of Dowdle Butane. See White Cypress, 541 So.2d at 1034; Belhaven Improvement, 507 So.2d at 46-47.