[Answer/discuss the question below. Or check Mercantile Law Instructions; Mercantile Law Essay Questions: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9 and 10; Mercantile Multiple Choice Questions: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 and 15; See also 2013 Bar Exam: Information, Discussions, Tips, Questions and Results]
In the November 2010 stockholders meeting of Greenville Corporation, eight (8) directors were elected to the board. The directors assumed their posts in January 2011. Since no stockholders’ meeting was held in November 2011, the eight directors served in a holdover capacity and thus continued discharging their powers.
In June 2012, two (2) of Greenville Corporation’s directors — Director A and Director B — resigned from the board. Relying on Section 29 of the Corporation Code, the remaining six (6) directors elected two (2) new directors to fill in the vacancy caused by the resignation of Directors A and B.
Stockholder X questioned the election of the new directors, initially, through a letter-complaint addressed to the board, and later (when his letter-complaint went unheeded), through a derivative suit filed with the court. He claimed that the vacancy in the board should be filled up by the vote of the stockholders of Greenville Corporation. Greenville Corporation’s directors defended the legality of their action, claiming as well that Stockholder X’s derivative suit was improper.
Rule on the issues raised. (8%)