Master Maine's high court adopts the ALI corporate opportunity standard and remands a breach-of-loyalty dispute over a club president's purchase of neighboring land. with this comprehensive case brief.
Northeast Harbor Golf Club, Inc. v. Harris is a foundational corporate law decision on the duty of loyalty and the corporate opportunity doctrine. The Maine Supreme Judicial Court (the Law Court) used the case to adopt the American Law Institute's (ALI) Principles of Corporate Governance approach to corporate opportunities, replacing the older, often muddled "line-of-business," "interest or expectancy," and pure fairness tests. By choosing a structured disclosure-and-renunciation regime, the court clarified when fiduciaries must present opportunities to the corporation, how they can safely proceed, and what counts as a disinterested corporate rejection.
The case is also notable because it arises in the nonprofit context, underscoring that officers and directors of nonprofits owe robust fiduciary duties comparable to those in for-profit corporations. For law students, it is a key study in how modern courts manage conflicts between corporate fiduciaries' personal pursuits and the corporation's potential interests, and it neatly illustrates how process—timely, full disclosure and informed rejection—can determine outcomes as much as substance.
Northeast Harbor Golf Club, Inc. v. Harris, 661 A.2d 1146 (Me. 1995)
Northeast Harbor Golf Club, Inc. is a nonprofit corporation operating a private golf course in Northeast Harbor, Maine. Harris served as the Club's long-time president and a director. In the late 1980s, the Club intermittently discussed the possibility of expanding or improving its facilities and the potential desirability of adjacent or nearby parcels for that purpose. Real estate brokers approached Harris about two parcels of land (each near or adjacent to the Club) that were obvious candidates for course expansion or related Club uses. Harris learned of these opportunities because of her role and relationships as Club president and the common understanding that land suitable for expansion would naturally be of interest to the Club. Rather than present the opportunities to the Club for advance consideration, Harris personally negotiated and entered into purchase agreements for the parcels in her own name (or through entities she controlled). Only after committing to buy did she inform the board and, at times, canvass whether the Club wanted to step into her position. On those occasions, the Club did not act to acquire the properties. Harris proceeded to take title, and she later subdivided, developed, or resold interests in the properties to her own benefit. The Club sued in the Maine Superior Court alleging that Harris had usurped corporate opportunities in breach of her duty of loyalty and sought equitable remedies (including a constructive trust and an accounting). The trial court entered judgment for Harris, concluding that the Club lacked the requisite interest or expectancy, among other reasons. The Club appealed.
Did the Club president and director breach her duty of loyalty by usurping corporate opportunities when she acquired nearby parcels suitable for Club expansion—opportunities she learned of due to her corporate position—without first fully disclosing them to, and obtaining a disinterested rejection from, the Club?
Adopting the ALI Principles of Corporate Governance § 5.05, the court held that a "corporate opportunity" includes opportunities to engage in a business activity of which a director or senior executive becomes aware (1) in connection with performing corporate functions or under circumstances signaling that the offeror expects the opportunity to be offered to the corporation; (2) through the use of corporate information or property; or (3) that are closely related to a business in which the corporation is engaged or expects to engage. A director or senior executive may not take a corporate opportunity unless, before doing so, the fiduciary: (a) offers the opportunity to the corporation and makes full disclosure of the conflict and the material facts, and the corporation—acting through disinterested directors or disinterested shareholders—properly rejects it; or (b) can prove that the corporation has no interest or expectancy in the opportunity, the opportunity is not essential to the corporation, and taking it does not create a conflict or otherwise breach the duty of loyalty. Timely, informed, and disinterested corporate renunciation is a central safe harbor under this approach.
The court vacated the judgment for Harris and remanded. It adopted the ALI corporate opportunity standard and concluded that Harris's post-acquisition disclosures and informal inquiries did not satisfy the safe harbor of prior full disclosure and disinterested rejection. The lower court must determine on remand whether the parcels were corporate opportunities under the ALI framework and, if so, the appropriate equitable relief.
The Law Court criticized traditional tests—the line-of-business test, the interest-or-expectancy test, and a free-ranging fairness test—as underinclusive, overinclusive, or indeterminate in application, providing poor ex ante guidance to fiduciaries. By contrast, the ALI approach combines a functional definition of "corporate opportunity" with a clear procedural safe harbor centered on timely disclosure and disinterested renunciation. This structure encourages fiduciaries to err on the side of disclosure and allows corporations to make informed decisions while minimizing litigation risk and hindsight bias. Applying these principles, the court emphasized that Harris learned of the parcels in her capacity as Club president and under circumstances that would reasonably lead one to believe the Club might be interested—especially given ongoing or prior discussions about potential expansion. The timing and manner of Harris's actions mattered: she committed to purchase before providing the Club a full and fair chance to consider the opportunities. Her subsequent notifications did not constitute a proper, disinterested corporate rejection under the ALI safe harbor because they occurred after she had already undertaken binding obligations, effectively placing the Club in a conflicted posture and constraining its options. Further, the trial court's focus on the Club's alleged lack of funds or uncertainty about expansion goals did not defeat the corporate opportunity analysis; under the ALI standard, financial wherewithal is relevant but not dispositive, and officers who become aware of potentially suitable opportunities must still disclose and seek renunciation. Because the lower court had not applied the ALI framework and because factual questions remained (including the precise scope of the Club's interest and the nature of any disclosure), the Law Court remanded for further proceedings and determination of appropriate equitable remedies such as a constructive trust or accounting if a breach were found.
Northeast Harbor modernizes Maine's corporate opportunity doctrine by adopting the ALI's disclosure-and-renunciation model. It teaches that process is paramount: fiduciaries must present opportunities learned through their roles to the corporation before acting personally. The case is widely taught because it highlights the duty of loyalty's reach in both nonprofit and for-profit settings, clarifies that lack of immediate funds does not excuse nondisclosure, and provides a practical roadmap for avoiding liability through timely, full disclosure and disinterested rejection. It also underscores the availability of equitable remedies—like constructive trusts—when fiduciaries usurp opportunities.
Yes. The court treated the Club's nonprofit status as immaterial to the core duty-of-loyalty analysis. Officers and directors of nonprofits owe fiduciary duties comparable to those in for-profit corporations, including not usurping corporate opportunities learned through their positions.
A valid rejection requires that the fiduciary offer the opportunity to the corporation before taking it; make full disclosure of all material facts and the conflict; and obtain rejection by disinterested decision-makers—either a majority of disinterested directors or disinterested shareholders—acting in compliance with applicable conflict-of-interest procedures. After-the-fact ratification is risky and typically insufficient if the fiduciary has already committed to the deal or if disinterestedness or full information is lacking.
Not categorically. Financial constraints are relevant but not dispositive. Under the ALI approach, a fiduciary still must disclose and allow the corporation to decide—perhaps by seeking financing, partnering, or rejecting the opportunity. Unilaterally concluding that the corporation cannot pursue the opportunity does not create a safe harbor.
Traditional tests focus on substantive categorization (e.g., is the opportunity within the company's line of business; does the company have an existing expectancy). The ALI approach preserves these considerations but centers on a process-based safe harbor: disclose first, then obtain a disinterested rejection. It also defines corporate opportunities more functionally (including opportunities learned through one's role or corporate information), providing clearer guidance and incentivizing early disclosure.
Courts commonly impose equitable remedies such as a constructive trust over the property or profits, disgorgement, and an accounting. The goal is to prevent unjust enrichment and restore to the corporation the benefits of the usurped opportunity. Injunctive relief may also be available where appropriate.
Northeast Harbor Golf Club v. Harris anchors modern corporate opportunity doctrine in Maine by adopting the ALI's structured disclosure-and-renunciation framework. It reframes the analysis away from rigid categorization and toward a practical process that prioritizes full, timely disclosure and informed, disinterested corporate decision-making.
For students and practitioners, the case is a blueprint for fiduciary conduct: when in doubt, disclose early and secure a clean rejection from disinterested decision-makers. Failure to do so can transform a plausible personal investment into a breach of the duty of loyalty, exposing the fiduciary to powerful equitable remedies.
Need to cite this case?
Generate a perfectly formatted Bluebook citation in seconds.
Use our Bluebook Citation Generator →