Insights
Publications

California Court Erects A Strong Barrier To Creditor Claims Against Corporate Directors And Officers

11/4/2009 Articles

The Sixth District Court of Appeal, resolving a previously unanswered question in California, has drawn a bright line shielding company directors and officers from personal liability arising from creditor claims of breach of fiduciary duty.  Berg & Berg Enterprises, LLC v. Boyle, --- Cal. App. 4th ---, 2009 WL 3470631, 09 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 13, 305 (Oct. 29, 2009).  California has now joined Delaware in holding that directors do not owe creditors a fiduciary duty, even when the corporation is operating in the so-called "zone of insolvency."

Berg & Berg Enterprises, LLC, was the largest creditor of Pluris, Inc. when Pluris did an assignment for the benefit of creditors under California law and closed its doors.  Berg subsequently brought an action against several of Pluris's directors, challenging decisions the directors made as breaches of the fiduciary duties the directors owed to all creditors when the company was operating in the "zone of insolvency."  The legal theory was not novel, but no California court had ever resolved the question of whether directors and officers owe creditors - as opposed to the company and its shareholders - a duty of care when insolvent or near insolvency.

The theory originated from a footnote in a Delaware case, Credit Lyonnais Bank Nederland N.V. v. Pathe Communications Corp., 1991 Del. Ch. LEXIS 215 (Del. Ch. Dec. 30, 1991), which, although finding no breach of fiduciary duty, posited that "where a corporation is operating in the vicinity of insolvency, a board of directors is not merely the agent of the [shareholders], but owes its duty to the corporate enterprise" as a whole, including its creditors.  Id. at *108, n.55.  Cases and legal commentary following Credit Lyonnais have suggested that when a corporation is actually or nearly insolvent, the directors may owe a duty of care that is paramount to the common law and statutory fiduciary duties owed to shareholders.

Berg & Berg soundly rejected that theory.  The court held that no duty of directors to creditors is created "solely due to a state of corporate insolvency."  Rather, the court held that, even where a corporation is actually insolvent, the duty of care directors owe to the corporation's creditors is limited to avoiding actions that would harm the corporation itself, such as acts that involve self-dealing or the preferential treatment of creditors.  Although never previously decided by a California court, this holding of Berg & Berg is consistent with federal cases applying California law, which have held that upon actual insolvency, a corporation's assets become subject to a constructive trust for the benefit of corporate creditors - the so-called "trust fund doctrine."  The Berg & Berg court found that the "trust fund doctrine" is applicable in California to corporations that are legally insolvent, but that it is limited to cases where directors or officers have diverted corporate assets to insiders or preferential creditors, or have otherwise "dissipated or unduly risked the insolvent corporation's assets." 

The Berg & Berg court had even more antipathy toward finding that directors owed a heightened duty to creditors in the impossible-to-define "zone of insolvency."  Recognizing that as long as the corporation remains solvent, the corporation is able to satisfy its contractual obligations to creditors and the directors' primary duties are to exercise their business judgment in an effort to maximize the corporation's overall financial health for the benefit of its shareholder owners.  The court, therefore, concluded that "because the existence of a zone or vicinity of insolvency is even less objectively determinable than actual insolvency, we hold that there is no fiduciary duty prescribed under California law that is owed to creditors by directors of a corporation solely by virtue of its operating in the ‘zone' or ‘vicinity' of insolvency."

Berg & Berg essentially adopted the holding in the seminal Delaware case on the issue, North American Catholic Educ. Programming Found., Inc. v. Gheewalla, 930 A.2d 92 (Del. 2007).  Gheewalla held that creditors have no direct cause of action against individual directors or officers for breach of their fiduciary duties either when actually insolvent or when operating in the "zone of insolvency," and may only bring a derivative action against the directors for such a breach if the corporation is actually insolvent. 

With California joining Delaware in concluding that directors' primary obligations are to offer effective, good faith leadership to their corporations for the benefit of the company and its shareholders, creditors' attempts to hold directors and officers personally liable for their business decisions will be severely hampered.

Firm Highlights

Publication

New Year, New CMS Price Transparency Rule For Hospitals

Transparency in health care pricing can help patients make informed decisions, increase competition, and drive down the cost of health care. Accordingly, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) has promulgated a new...

Read More
Publication

Pandemic Restriction Challenges Face Uphill Battle in California

On Dec.16, 2020, in Midway Venture LLC v. County of San Diego, the San Diego Superior Court preliminarily enjoined enforcement of two COVID-19-related California public health restrictions as applied to two adult entertainment businesses...

Read More
Publication

How to Comply With the TCPA After the Facebook Supreme Court Decision

Many consumer products industry companies rely heavily on text messaging marketing programs to reach their customers and to create loyalty in an increasingly competitive market. While text messaging programs may be an effective marketing tool...

Read More
News

Douglas Young Receives 2021 Judge Learned Hand Award From AJC San Francisco

Read More
News

Farella Braun + Martel Attorneys Named to 2021 Northern California Super Lawyers and Rising Stars

Thirty-seven Farella Braun + Martel lawyers were named to the Super Lawyers and Rising Stars lists of top attorneys in Northern California for 2021. 2021 Farella Northern California Super Lawyers: George Argyris – Estate...

Read More
News

Chambers USA 2021 Recognizes Farella Braun + Martel Attorneys, Practices

Farella Braun + Martel announces that Chambers USA has recognized 13 lawyers and 6 practice areas in the legal directory’s 2021 edition. Individual Rankings: Tyler Gerking – Insurance: Policyholders Jeffrey Hamilton – Cannabis Law...

Read More
News

Kelly Matayoshi Appointed to San Francisco Superior Court Elimination of Bias Committee

Read More
News

Ashleigh Nickerson Member of Inaugural NBA Associate Advancement Academy for Excellence

Farella Braun + Martel is proud to announce that Ashleigh Nickerson was selected to participate in the inaugural class of the National Bar Association’s Associate Advancement Academy for Excellence.  The year-long Associate Advancement Academy...

Read More
Publication

The FASTER Act: What Companies Need To Know About the New Food Allergy Law

While the Food Allergy Safety, Treatment, Education, and Research Act (FASTER Act) only makes a minor change to add sesame as a major food allergen, it signals the government’s intent to closely examine food...

Read More
Publication

Complying With the TCPA After the Facebook Supreme Court Decision

Many cannabis dispensaries rely heavily on text messaging marketing programs to reach their customers and to create loyalty in an increasingly competitive market. While text messaging programs may be an effective marketing tool, they...

Read More