Fiduciary Duty

Here is another bit if information/education for us on my investigative quest. Again, this is still primarily US based, unless noted, at this time.

A fiduciary duty is the highest standard of care.  The person who has a fiduciary duty is called the fiduciary, and the person to whom he owes the duty, is typically referred to as the principal or the beneficiary. If an individual breaches the fiduciary duties, he or she would need to account for the ill-gotten profit. His or her beneficiaries are entitled to damages, even if they suffered no harm. 

1. Corporations and Fiduciary Duty

In discussing corporate fiduciary duties, it is very helpful to refer to the corporate law of Delaware. More than half of publicly traded companies are incorporated in Delaware.  Nonetheless, corporations incorporated in other states (ed.: or Countries) may be bound by different rules and obligations.  (BrewBot has/had a US based company or operating corporation but as of yet, I've not been able to find accurate filing information beyond a cold trail in Texas.)

Directors of corporations, in fulfilling their managerial responsibilities, are charged with certain fiduciary duties.  The primary duties are the duty of care and the duty of loyalty.

• Duty of Care: This duty requires that directors inform themselves “prior to making a business decision, of all material information reasonably available to them.”  Whether the directors were informed of all material information depends on the quality of the information, the advice available, and whether the directors had “sufficient opportunity to acquire knowledge concerning the problem before action.”  Moreover, a director may not simply accept the information presented.  Rather, the director must assess the information with a “critical eye,” so as to protect the interests of the corporations and its stockholders. (Per filings, Chris McClelland is the sole Director of BrewBot)
   
• Duty of Loyalty: As the Delaware Supreme Court explained in Guth v. Loft, 5 A.2d 503, 510 (Del. 1939): “Corporate officers and directors are not permitted to use their position of trust and confidence to further their private interests. . . . A public policy, existing through the years, and derived from a profound knowledge of human characteristics and motives, has established a rule that demands of a corporate officer or director, peremptorily and inexorably, the most scrupulous observance of his duty, not only affirmatively to protect the interests of the corporation committed to his charge, but to refrain from doing anything that would work injury to the corporation, or to deprive it of profit or advantage which his skill and ability might properly bring to it, or to enable it to make in the reasonable and lawful exercise of its power.”

Additionally, courts have imposed the following duties:

• Duty of Good Faith: Requiring the director to advance interests of the corporation, not violate the law, and fulfill his or her duties.  For a thorough discussion of this duty, see In re The Walt Disney Co. Derivative Litig., 906 A.2d 27 (Del. 2006).
   
• Duty of Confidentiality: Required directors to keep corporate information confidential and not disclose it for their own benefit.  Consult Guth v. Loft, Inc., 5 A.2d 503 (Del. 1939) for more information.
   
• Duty of Prudence: Requires a trustee to administer a trust with a degree of care, skill, and caution that a prudent trustee would exercise.  Consult Amgen Inc. v. Harris, 136 S. Ct. 758 (2016) for more information.
   
• Duty of Disclosure: This duty requires directors to act with “complete candor.”  In certain circumstances, this requires the directors to disclose to the stockholders “all of the facts and circumstances” relevant to the directors’ decision.

These duties do not mean, however, that the court will always impose its own review over directors’ decisions.  Under the “business judgment rule” the court presumes “that in making a business decision the directors of a corporation acted in an informed basis, in good faith and in the honest belief that the actions taken was in the bests interests of the company.”  Under this rule, courts will generally refrain from questioning the directors’ judgment so long as their judgment can be attributed to some rational corporate purpose.

How do the Laws in Belfast differ? Still researching the similarities and differences...keep watching the blog for further updates.