When is it in the best interests of a company to sue its directors and officers for improper disclosure? This was the central issue in Arkansas Teacher Retirement System v. Lions Gate Entertainment Corp., 2016 BCSC 432, which dealt with an application for conduct of a derivative action.
The petitioner was a shareholder in the respondent company and applied to bring a derivative action against various directors and officers of the respondent stemming from events in 2010 which were the subject of proceedings before the BC Supreme Court and Court of Appeal regarding a takeover bid launched by Carl Icahn.
The central argument of the petitioners was that the proposed defendants authorized, permitted or acquiesced in filings of US Securities Exchange Commission (“SEC”) mandatory disclosure documents that misrepresented and omitted material facts. On account of those filings, the company paid a USD$7.5 million fine. Through these actions, the petitioners argued the proposed defendants breached a number of equitable and legal duties to the company. The petitioners argued that the company suffered damages, including the amount of the fine and the “credit, character and reputation” of the company.
The company formed a special committee to review the proposed derivative action and concluded it would be harmful to the company and not in its best interests.
The company’s central argument was that the proposed action was not in the best interests of the corporation. The costs of a derivative action had to justify the potential outcome to be granted leave. The costs had to balance the potential recovery of damages (predominantly comprising the $7.5 million fine) and the legal fees incurred to defend the action (there were 12 proposed defendants, each of whom would be entitled to separate counsel).
The focus of the court’s analysis was based on whether the proposed action was in the best interests of the company.
Best Interests
The court’s analysis of best interests focussed on the following issues: (1) the company’s indemnification obligations; (2) reasonable prospects of success of the case; (3) amount of the SEC fine; (4) business judgment rule; and (5) independence of the special committee.
As a general principle, the potential benefits of starting a derivative action had to justify the cost of the litigation and the inconvenience to the company, in addition to demonstrating that a reasonable claim existed with an evidentiary foundation. The financial well-being of the company is an important consideration in determining its best interests.
Indemnification
The rules under the BCA as to whether directors and officers are entitled to indemnification for a derivative action are “unclear and have not been extensively litigated”.
The respondent argued that the directors and officers were entitled to indemnification against any damages and for legal fees pursuant to the company’s articles and contracts that had been executed by the company and directors and officers. There was no evidence that any of their actions were done in bad faith. A derivative action would be futile since the company would be required to indemnify the proposed defendants for any damages.
The court outlined that the provisions of the BCA were unclear as to whether indemnification is permitted for derivative actions. The court noted that s. 163(2) “appears” to prohibit indemnification in the context of a derivative action, but has not yet been judicially considered. However, there is a conflict in the BCA as s. 164 provides that despite other provisions of the BCA a court can order indemnification for costs or liabilities.
The court noted the policy objectives behind s. 163(2) as the “remedy of a derivative action would be futile if directors could breach their fiduciary duty, but be indemnified by the company when the company is awarded a judgment against them”. However, the ambiguity arising between s. 163(2) and 164 made it “impossible to discern in what situations indemnification may be given, if any”.
While the court declined to make a decision as to whether indemnification was available he stated that it was “impossible to predict how s. 164 should operate at this time”. The court went on to state “I do not believe that s. 164 should be used to supplement the poorly drafted s. 163.”
Reasonable Prospect of Success
The court found the petitioner’s claims had no reasonable prospect of success. First, the disclosure issues had already been litigated and resolved before the Court of Appeal. Second, none of the proposed defendants had been investigated by the SEC for any wrongdoing. The fine at issue was levied against the company only. Third, there were no facts pleaded to establish a breach of a fiduciary duty.
Amount of SEC Fine
A lawsuit regarding the imposition of the SEC fine could not be in the best interests of the company given that it was a relatively small amount of money. The harm of a derivative action to the company would not be worth the damages sought.
Business Judgment Rule
The court decided that the business judgment rule does not apply to all actions of the board. For example, the board could not rely on the business judgment rule in its failure to meet its disclosure requirements, if a court ruled that the board had breached its duty of care. Nevertheless, the court did accord deference to the special committee’s decision not to pursue the derivative action.
Independence of the Special Committee
The court rejected the petitioner’s argument that the special committee had to establish its independence and that it acted in good faith. There was a presumption of good faith which had to be rebutted, which the petitioner was unable to do.
Finally, the court noted that the commencement of a derivative action would constitute a breach of the settlement agreement that the company had entered into with the SEC. The company was prohibited pursuant to that agreement from seeking to recover the fine paid to the SEC. If the derivative action was authorized, the SEC would be permitted to re-investigate the case.