Background
In one redevelopment district, a group of association members pushed through a general meeting resolution removing the association's officers — the chair, directors and auditors. It came just as urgent business was piling up, including concluding the construction contract and filing the notice of commencement, so an unlawful removal that left the officer posts vacant would have halted the project indefinitely, to the serious detriment of members acting in good faith. Changchun represented the officers targeted for removal.
What Was at Stake
The key questions were whether the removal resolution was unlawful and whether its effect could be stayed quickly enough for the officers to continue in post. Here, time itself was the loss.
How Changchun Helped
Changchun noted that a substantial number of the votes in favor of removal came not from attendance in person but from "written resolutions" of doubtful authenticity, and identified the problems with each written resolution submitted, supported by a large volume of material. After preliminary steps including the appointment of a special representative and the preservation of evidence, we applied for an injunction staying the effect of the general meeting resolution.
The court accepted Changchun's arguments and stayed the effect of the removal resolution, allowing the officers to continue in post and move the project forward promptly. The case shows that where a general meeting resolution is procedurally defective, staying its effect can protect both the association and its members. (Outcomes depend on the facts of each case and may differ.)