Mont. Code Ann. § 35-2-441
This is the official text of Mont. Code Ann. § 35-2-441, part of Montana’s Code Ann — part of the compiled statutory law of Montana, published by the state as "Code Ann." Browse the sections below, each linked to its official government source.
Not legal advice. This page reproduces the official text of a government statute for reference only. Laws change, and how a statute applies depends on your specific facts. For advice about your situation, consult a licensed attorney in your state.
35-2-441 Standards of conduct for officers
Official statutory text
35-2-441 . Standards of conduct for officers. (1) An officer with discretionary authority shall discharge the duties under that authority:
(a) in good faith;
(b) with the care an ordinarily prudent person in a similar position would exercise under similar circumstances; and
(c) in a manner the officer reasonably believes to be in the best interests of the corporation and its members, if any.
(2) In discharging the duties, an officer is entitled to rely on information, opinions, reports, or statements, including financial statements and other financial data, if prepared or presented by:
(a) one or more officers or employees of the corporation who the officer reasonably believes to be reliable and competent in the matters presented;
(b) attorneys, public accountants, or other persons as to matters that the officer reasonably believes are within the person's professional or expert competence; or
(c) in the case of religious corporations, religious authorities, ministers, priests, rabbis, or other persons whose position or duties in the religious organization the officer believes justify reliance and confidence and who the officer believes to be reliable and competent in the matters presented.
(3) An officer is not acting in good faith if the officer has knowledge concerning the matter in question that makes reliance otherwise permitted by subsection (2) unwarranted.
(4) An officer is not liable to the corporation, any member, or any other person for an action taken or not taken as an officer if the officer acted in compliance with this section.
(5) This part does not modify any limitation of liability of officers provided by Title 27.
(a) in good faith;
(b) with the care an ordinarily prudent person in a similar position would exercise under similar circumstances; and
(c) in a manner the officer reasonably believes to be in the best interests of the corporation and its members, if any.
(2) In discharging the duties, an officer is entitled to rely on information, opinions, reports, or statements, including financial statements and other financial data, if prepared or presented by:
(a) one or more officers or employees of the corporation who the officer reasonably believes to be reliable and competent in the matters presented;
(b) attorneys, public accountants, or other persons as to matters that the officer reasonably believes are within the person's professional or expert competence; or
(c) in the case of religious corporations, religious authorities, ministers, priests, rabbis, or other persons whose position or duties in the religious organization the officer believes justify reliance and confidence and who the officer believes to be reliable and competent in the matters presented.
(3) An officer is not acting in good faith if the officer has knowledge concerning the matter in question that makes reliance otherwise permitted by subsection (2) unwarranted.
(4) An officer is not liable to the corporation, any member, or any other person for an action taken or not taken as an officer if the officer acted in compliance with this section.
(5) This part does not modify any limitation of liability of officers provided by Title 27.
Status: in_force · Read it on the official government site
Need a lawyer in Montana?
Find a Montana lawyer
About this page: Statute text is reproduced from official government publishers via the
Open US Law dataset
(Vaquill AI, snapshot v2026.08, CC BY 4.0). Primary legislative text like this is public domain under the government-edicts doctrine
(Georgia v. Public.Resource.Org, 2020). We link every section back to its official source so you can verify it independently.