Overview
In
Recently, in
Currently, directors and officers of Canadian corporations do not owe a specific duty of oversight. In a previous blog,
Facts
Cai moved to dismiss the claim on the basis that Segway failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.5
The Decision
The Court granted Cai's motion, holding that such allegations are an ill fit for a Caremark claim.
While the Court reaffirmed its decision in McDonald that the oversight duty extends to corporate officers, it clarified that it had not in fact created a lower standard for oversight claims brought against officers. The Court rejected Segway's interpretation of McDonald implying a lower standard for officers as compared to directors. Rather, the Court clarified that a Caremark claim against a corporate officer is not easier to plead than one against a director—the high standard applies to both directors and officers. In addition, it should be noted that in order for an officer to be liable for breach of their duty of oversight that the applicable bad faith needs to be with respect to "matters within the officer's remit".
The Court proceeded to analyze whether Segway adequately pleaded that Cai had acted in bad faith, which was required to support its claim that Cai had breached her duty of oversight. A fiduciary is said to act in "bad faith" where they: (1) "utterly fail to implement any reporting or information system or controls; or (2) "having implemented such a system or controls, consciously fail to monitor or oversee its operations", disabling them "from being informed or risks or problems."
The Court noted that oversight duties under
The Court concluded that the allegations against Cai did not satisfy the high threshold of wrongdoing necessary to establish bad faith but also specifically noted that Segway did not allege any potential wrongdoings by Cai. Specifically, the Court held that the allegations made did not amount to the red flags required to trigger Caremark liability. Furthermore, in finding that there was no evidence under the second prong of the test that Cai acted in bad faith, the Court affirmed that "the Caremark doctrine is not a tool to hold fiduciaries liable for everyday business problems" but rather intended to "address the extraordinary case where fiduciaries' "utter failure" to implement "an effective compliance system or 'conscious disregard' of the law gives rise to a corporate trauma." Therefore, the motion by Cai to dismiss was granted.
Takeaways for Canadian Corporate Law
As we highlighted in a previous blog,
In any event, it is well known that Canadian corporate law often looks to
For more information about directors' and officers' duties in the context of your organization, please do not hesitate to contact the authors or a member of the Bennett Jones Corporate Governance group.
Footnotes
1. C.A. No. 2021-0324-JTL (Del. Ch.
2. In re
3.
4. C.A. No. 2022-1110-LWW (Del. Ch.
5.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
Ms
4500 Bankers
T2P 4K7
Tel: 4032983235
Fax: 4032657219
E-mail: azzuolol@bennettjones.com
URL: www.bennettjones.com
© Mondaq Ltd, 2024 - Tel. +44 (0)20 8544 8300 - http://www.mondaq.com, source