Brief Fact Summary. Ferguson (D) and other firm managers (D) are being sued by Bane (P) who claims they negligently breached fiduciary duties when they cancelled his retirement benefits.
Synopsis of Rule of Law. No liability attaches to a dissolution of a company if it was motivated by good faith judgment for the corporation’s benefit and not the personal gain of the officers.
For the purposes of determining whether the complaint states a claim, the facts alleged, plus reasonable inferences therefrom, are taken as true, and the question is then whether on those assumptions plaintiff would have a right to legal relief.
View Full Point of LawIssue. Does liability attach if the dissolution of a company was motivated by good faith judgment for the corporation’s benefit and not the personal gain of the officers?
Held. (Posner, J.) No. Liability does not attach if the dissolution of a company was motivated by good faith judgment for the corporation’s benefit and not for the personal gain of the officers. Here, competence, not good faith, was complained of. Ferguson (D) owes no fiduciary duty to Bane (P) because he is no longer an active partner. Even if fiduciary duty did exist, business judgment rule would protect Ferguson (D). Affirmed
Discussion. The court examined Bane’s (P) four different theories of liability. As an inactive partner, the Uniform Partnership Act was inapplicable since its purpose is to protect active partners. Fiduciary duty did not exist either, nor was there breach of contract, nor tort liability either.
)