Page 40 - Sharp-Hundley 2012
P. 40

Fiduciary Duty Also Found:  On the fiduciary duty claim, the panel acknowledged that generally
        corporate officers only owe a fiduciary duty to the corporation and its shareholders.
        However, citing Paul H. Schwendener, Inc. v. Jupiter Elec. Co.,  358 Ill. App. 3d 65
        (2005), it held that under certain circumstances an officer may owe a fiduciary duty to
        the corporation’s creditors.  “Specifically, once a corporation becomes insolvent, an
        officer’s fiduciary duty extends to the creditors of the corporation because, from the
        moment insolvency arises, the corporation’s assets are deemed to be held in trust for
        the benefit of its creditors,” the court said.

             Although not necessary to its decision, the panel also approvingly cited Delaware law under which a
        fiduciary duty to creditors may be found in cases of “fraud . . . or a violation of a statute.”

             No Cause of Action for Discovery Violation:  Workforce was not a complete victory for the
        plaintiff, however.  In the trial court, plaintiff had unsuccessfully asserted claims arising out of defendants’
        alleged failure to produce all documents in their possession in a previous lawsuit.  It claimed the failure to
        produce  gave  rise  to  civil  actions  for  breach  of  a  “duty  of  disclosure  and  candor”  and  for  fraudulent
        concealment.

             Distinguishing cases arising under partnership law and cases where the failure to disclose was held
        to toll the statute of limitations on a claim for which there was an independent basis, the panel said it
                           found no support “for an independent cause of action arising out of an alleged breach
                           of a duty of disclosure and candor.”

                               With  respect  to  the  claim  for  fraudulent  concealment,  the  court  recognized  that
                           fraud may consist of “the intentional omission or concealment of a material fact under
                           circumstances creating an opportunity to speak,” citing Hassan v. Yusuf, 408 Ill. App.
                           3d 327 (2011).  However, to establish fraud for failure to speak a plaintiff must establish
                           the existence of a “special or fiduciary relationship, which would raise a duty to speak,”
        the  court  said.    Because  plaintiff  had  failed  to  allege  a  fiduciary  relation  in  the  context  of  the  alleged
        discovery violations, the panel said the action for fraud was properly dismissed.

             Case’s Legacy Unclear:  Workforce’s rejection of an independent cause of action for discovery
        violations is precedential and important in rejecting doctrines that otherwise would have had broad and ill-
        defined limitations.  This part of the decision  is unlikely to draw much criticism.  The
        decision’s holding on the fiduciary duty to creditors is well supported by prior law, though
        that  precedent  is  often  overlooked,  a  phenomenon  which  Workforce  will  make  more
        difficult.

             What may expose Workforce to the greatest criticism is its treatment of the mere
        continuation  doctrine,  and  that  criticism  may  stem  in  part  from  difficulty  in  knowing
        precisely what the court held.  Defendants argued that the common ownership in this
        complex  fact  situation  was  less  than  one-third,  while  plaintiff  alleged  it  was  much
        greater.  The panel did not resolve that factual dispute, but held that the dismissal of the
        pleading as insufficient on its face was improper.  What Workforce means as a matter of substantive law
        thus remains subject to debate and future interpretation.

                                                                                                      John\SharpThinking\#75.doc

        ●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●
                                           THE  SHARP  LAW  FIRM,  P.C.

                1115 Harrison, P.O. Box 906, Mt. Vernon, IL 62864 • Telephone 618-242-0246 • Facsimile 618-242-1170 • www.thesharpfirm.com

           Business Transactions • Litigation • Financial Law • Problem Finances • Real Estate • Corporate • Commercial Disputes • Creditors’ Rights •
                          Arbitration • Administrative Law • Employment Matters • Estate Planning • Probate • Family Matters

          Terry Sharp: Tsharp@lotsharp.com; John T. Hundley: Jhundley@lotsharp.com; Rebecca L. Reinhardt: Rreinhardt@lotsharp.com;
                                             Bentley J. Bender: Bbender@lotsharp.com

                                                        Advertising Material
   35   36   37   38   39   40   41   42   43   44   45