October 31, 2020

Volume X, Number 305

Advertisement

October 30, 2020

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

October 29, 2020

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

October 28, 2020

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

Nevada Supreme Court: Gross Negligence Is Insufficient For Director Breach of Fiduciary Claims

NRS 78.138(7)(b) provides that, with certain specific statutory exceptions, a director or officer of Nevada corporation is not individually liable to the corporation or its stockholders or creditors for any damages as a result of any act or failure to act in his or her capacity as a director or officer unless it is proven that:

  •  The director’s or officer’s act or failure to act constituted a breach of his or her fiduciary duties as a director or officer; and

  • The breach involved intentional misconduct, fraud or a knowing violation of law.

While the statute makes no mention of gross negligence, some federal district courts in Nevada have applied a bifurcated analysis, requiring a showing of at least gross negligence to state a duty-of-care claim or "intentional misconduct, fraud or a knowing violation of the law" to state a duty-of-loyalty claim.  See, e.g., FDIC v. Jacobs, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 157449, FDIC v. Johnson, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 148302, and FDIC v. Jones, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 131738.  SeeNevada's Business Judgment Rule: FDIC - 4; Management - 0 and Nevada's Duty Of Care Standard Fails To Win Summary Judgment For Director.

These courts did not make this up, but rather relied on the following statement of the Nevada Supreme Court in Shoen v. SAC Holding Corp., 122 Nev. 621, 640 (2006) (footnote omitted):

"With regard to the duty of care, the business judgment rule does not protect the gross negligence of uninformed directors and officers.  And directors and officers may only be found personally liable for breaching their fiduciary duty of loyalty if that breach involves intentional misconduct, fraud, or a knowing violation of the law."

Yesterday, the Nevada Supreme Court declared this statement to be dicta and expressly disavowed a bifurcated approach to duty-of-care and duty-of-loyalty.  Chur v. Dist. Ct., 136 Nev. Adv. Op. 7 (2020).  According to the Court, NRS 78.138(7) provides the sole avenue to hold directors and officers individually liable for damages arising from official misconduct.  

© 2010-2020 Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis LLP National Law Review, Volume X, Number 59
Advertisement

TRENDING LEGAL ANALYSIS

Advertisement
Advertisement

About this Author

Keith Paul Bishop, Corporate Transactions Lawyer, finance securities attorney, Allen Matkins Law Firm
Partner

Keith Bishop works with privately held and publicly traded companies on federal and state corporate and securities transactions, compliance, and governance matters. He is highly-regarded for his in-depth knowledge of the distinctive corporate and regulatory requirements faced by corporations in the state of California.

While many law firms have a great deal of expertise in federal or Delaware corporate law, Keith’s specific focus on California corporate and securities law is uncommon. A former California state regulator of securities and financial institutions, Keith has decades of...

949-851-5428
Advertisement
Advertisement