Legal Consequences When Majority Shareholders or Directors Steal From a Company: Case Examples and Analysis

When a majority shareholder or board member steals from a company, they breach their fiduciary duties and expose themselves to serious legal and financial repercussions, as well as lasting reputational damage. We will define what duties are owed to shareholders, consequences of a breach of those duties and real-world examples of the liability associated with a breach.

Here's a detailed explanation of fiduciary duties, specifically focusing on the duty of care and the duty of loyalty, along with their distinctions and implications in cases of misappropriation or theft by a shareholder or board member.

Understanding Fiduciary Duties: Duty of Care vs. Duty of Loyalty

In corporate law, fiduciary duties are the legal responsibilities that directors, officers, and controlling shareholders owe to a company and its shareholders. These duties ensure that those in positions of power act in the best interests of the company, rather than for personal gain. Among the most critical fiduciary duties are the duty of care and the duty of loyalty.

Fiduciary Duty of Care

The duty of care requires directors and officers to exercise reasonable diligence and prudence in managing the company's affairs. This means making informed decisions based on careful consideration of available information, seeking expert advice when necessary, and acting in a manner that a reasonably prudent person would under similar circumstances. The duty of care emphasizes process and informed decision-making.

To fulfill the duty of care, directors must attend meetings, review materials, and actively participate in discussions. They should ask probing questions, challenge assumptions, and demand adequate information to make sound judgments. The business judgment rule often protects directors from liability for decisions made in good faith, even if those decisions turn out poorly, as long as the decision-making process was diligent and informed.

A breach of the duty of care occurs when directors fail to adequately oversee the company's financial affairs, allowing misappropriation or theft to occur. For instance, if directors do not establish or maintain adequate internal controls, fail to detect red flags, or ignore warning signs of financial irregularities, they may be found to have breached their duty of care. The In re Puda Coal case exemplifies this, where directors were criticized for failing to actively monitor company assets, leading to the chairman's theft.

Fiduciary Duty of Loyalty

The duty of loyalty mandates that directors and officers act in the best interests of the company, putting its welfare above their own personal interests. This duty prohibits self-dealing, conflicts of interest, and the appropriation of corporate opportunities1. It requires unwavering fidelity to the company's mission.

Directors and officers must avoid situations where their personal interests conflict with the interests of the company. They cannot use their position for personal gain, such as by diverting corporate assets, engaging in insider trading, or competing directly with the company. Any transaction that benefits a director or officer at the expense of the company is subject to strict scrutiny under the duty of loyalty1.

A breach of the duty of loyalty is evident when a director or officer directly steals from the company, misappropriates funds, or uses corporate assets for personal benefit. Paying excessive salaries to family members, as alleged in Kelly v. Nolan, or diverting corporate funds for personal use constitutes a clear breach of the duty of loyalty. The InterMune, Inc. v. Harkonen case also illustrates this, where a CEO's fraudulent conduct led to the loss of indemnification rights, highlighting the severe consequences of disloyal behavior.

Key Differences Between Duty of Care and Duty of Loyalty

Feature	Duty of Care	Duty of Loyalty
Focus	Process and informed decision-making	Avoiding conflicts of interest and acting in the company's best interests
Standard	Reasonable diligence and prudence	Utmost good faith and fidelity
Breach Examples	Failure to oversee, inadequate internal controls, ignoring red flags	Self-dealing, misappropriation of assets, conflicts of interest, insider trading
Legal Test	Business judgment rule applies; liability requires gross negligence or bad faith	Transactions subject to strict scrutiny; burden on the fiduciary to prove fairness
Case Examples	In re Puda Coal (failure to monitor)	Kelly v. Nolan (self-dealing), InterMune, Inc. v. Harkonen (fraudulent conduct)

Legal Consequences for Corporate Theft

Civil Liability

When a majority shareholder or a director is found to have stolen from a company, they may face significant civil liability. Courts can award both compensatory damages, which are intended to repay the company for the stolen funds, and punitive damages, which serve to punish the wrongdoer and deter future misconduct. For example,in a New Jersey case, a court awarded $700,000 in punitive damages for "surreptitious and devious" theft. In cases of shareholder oppression, minority shareholders may also petition for forced buyouts of their shares at a fair value or even seek the dissolution of the company

Criminal Penalties

In addition to civil liability, individuals who engage in corporate theft may also face criminal penalties. While prosecutors often treat corporate theft as a civil matter, egregious cases can lead to charges such as wire fraud or embezzlement. A conviction on such charges can result in substantial fines, restitution orders, and even imprisonment.

North Carolina’s Kelly v. Nolan

In Kelly v. Nolan, minority shareholders brought claims against majority owners, alleging misappropriation of company assets. The dispute centered on accusations that the majority owners had engaged in self-dealing by paying excessive salaries to family members and diverting corporate funds for their personal use.

• Issue: Did the majority shareholders breach their fiduciary duties to the minority shareholders through the alleged misappropriation of company assets?

  
  

• Rule: North Carolina law recognizes "special duties" among shareholders in closely held corporations, allowing direct lawsuits for breaches of fiduciary duty, rather than requiring derivative suits. This acknowledges the heightened vulnerability of minority shareholders in such settings.

  
  

• Analysis: The court emphasized that majority shareholders in close corporations owe heightened obligations to minority stakeholders. The alleged self-dealing, including unjustified payments to relatives, was seen as a potential breach of the duty of loyalty and good faith.

  
  

• Conclusion: The court's decision allowed the minority shareholders' lawsuit to proceed, underscoring the principle that majority shareholders cannot exploit their control for personal gain at the expense of minority shareholders without facing legal consequences.

Delaware’s IIn re Caremark International Inc.

In re Caremark International Inc. Derivative Litigation stands as a landmark case in Delaware corporate law, shaping the understanding of a director's duty of oversight. This case arose from alleged illegal conduct by Caremark employees and addressed the extent to which directors could be held liable for failing to prevent such misconduct. While the court ultimately approved a settlement, its decision established critical principles regarding a director's responsibility to implement and monitor internal controls, setting the stage for future litigation concerning breaches of the duty of care and directorial oversight.

• Issue: Can directors be held liable for a breach of their fiduciary duty of care for failing to adequately supervise the conduct of employees, thereby allowing illegal conduct to occur within the company?

  
  

• Rule: Directors have a duty to exercise reasonable care in overseeing the corporation. This duty includes a responsibility to ensure that the corporation has an adequate system in place to monitor and detect illegal or improper conduct. A Caremark claim requires a showing that the directors utterly failed to implement any reporting or information system or controls, or having implemented such a system, consciously failed to monitor or oversee its operations, thereby disabling themselves from being informed of risks or problems requiring their attention. This failure must also be the proximate cause of a loss to the company.

  
  

• Analysis: The court held that to show a breach of the duty of care for failure of oversight, plaintiffs must demonstrate that the directors knew or should have known that violations of law were occurring, and that the directors took no steps in good faith to prevent or remedy the situation and that such failure was the proximate cause of the damages sustained. The court stated that there must be a sustained or systematic failure of the board to exercise oversight, such as an utter failure to attempt to assure a reasonable information and reporting system exists.

  
  

• Conclusion: The court approved a settlement agreement because there was no evidence that the directors consciously disregarded their duties. The court emphasized that directors are not insurers of the company's compliance with laws and regulations but must act in good faith and establish reasonable information and monitoring systems. This case established that a Caremark claim is difficult to prove and requires a showing of director bad faith or a complete failure to implement a monitoring system.

Steps to Address Misappropriation or Theft

When faced with suspected misappropriation of company assets, several steps can be taken to address the situation:

1. Forensic Accounting: Engage forensic accountants to conduct a thorough investigation and uncover any hidden transactions or inflated expenses.

   
   

2. File a Derivative Suit: As a shareholder, you can demand that the board act, but if the directors are complicit, you can bypass this and file a derivative suit.

   
   

3. Seek Injunctions or Asset Freezes: Seek a court order to prevent further theft and preserve assets during litigation.

   
   

4. Criminal Referrals: If the evidence suggests fraud or other criminal activity, report the theft to law enforcement.

   
   

Preventing Corporate Misappropriation or Theft

Implementing proactive measures is essential to preventing corporate theft and protecting company assets:

• Regular Audits: Conduct regular third-party audits to deter and detect asset diversion.

  
  

• Transparent Governance: Ensure that shareholders have access to financial records and meeting minutes to promote transparency and accountability.

  
  

• Director Training: Provide ongoing training to directors on their oversight duties, particularly in the context of global operations.

  
  

• Shareholder Agreements: Include clauses in shareholder agreements that penalize self-dealing or unauthorized transactions.

Implications for Shareholders and Board Members

Both the duty of care and the duty of loyalty are critical for maintaining trust and accountability in corporate governance. When shareholders or board members breach these duties through misappropriation or theft, they expose themselves to significant legal and financial consequences, including civil lawsuits, criminal charges, and reputational damage.

Shareholders can bring derivative lawsuits to recover losses on behalf of the company, while prosecutors may pursue criminal charges such as embezzlement or fraud. Furthermore, courts have the power to impose significant penalties, including compensatory and punitive damages, as well as orders for restitution and disgorgement of ill-gotten gains. The consequences serve to deter misconduct and protect the interests of the company and its shareholders.

---

Howard Law is a business and M&A law firm in the greater Charlotte, North Carolina area, with additional services in M&A advisory and business brokerage. Howard Law is a law firm based in the greater Charlotte, North Carolina area focused on business law, corporate law, mergers & acquisitions, M&A advisor and business brokerage. Handling all business matters from incorporation to acquisition as well as a comprehensive understanding in assisting through mergers and acquisition. The choice of a lawyer is an important decision and should not be based solely on advertisements. The information on this website is for general and informational purposes only and should not be interpreted to indicate a certain result will occur in your specific legal situation. Information on this website is not legal advice and does not create an attorney-client relationship. You should consult an attorney for advice regarding your individual situation. Contacting us does not create an attorney-client relationship. Please do not send any confidential information to us until such time as an attorney-client relationship has been established.