68 PART I Guide for Instructors and Answers to Chapter Review Questions
©2013 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part, except for use as permitted in a license distributed with a certain product or
service or otherwise on a password-protected website for classroom use.
was accused of exerting “unchecked power
and control” over Znetix, and diverting
millions of dollars from the day-to-day
operations for the personal benefit of himself,
his family, friends, and accomplices.
As a result of Lawrence’s acts, the
Securities and Exchange Commission forced
Znetix into receivership and forced
liquidation. The complaint alleges losses to
shareholders exceeding $10,000,000.
The plaintiff and receiver, Michael
Grassmuek, claimed that the defendant
directors and officers should be held
personally liable for damages to the creditors
and investors because they were negligent and
exercised bad faith by failing to act to prevent
or control Lawrence’s wrongful acts. The
complaint alleges that the directors and
officers had knowledge of, or recklessly failed
to learn of, Lawrence’s wrongful acts when
they recklessly and negligently continued to
work for Znetix and/or allowed their names,
services, and work product to be used in
furtherance of Lawrence’s wrongful acts,
without disclosing those acts or taking steps to
prevent them. The complaint alleges that they
acted in bad faith by accepting compensation
for a job they did not intend to properly
perform, acting in their own self-interest at the
expense of the corporation. The defendants in
this case brought this motion to dismiss the
suit against them. They claim that the plaintiff
pleads insufficient facts to elevate the duty of
care claim outside of the maximum protection
provided in the articles of incorporation.
The pertinent state laws protect
duty of care. However, if directors breach the
duty of care intentionally, knowingly, or in
bad faith, the director protection statutes will
not shield them from personal liability.
Further, when directors breach the duty of
loyalty or act in bad faith, they are not
shielded by the director protection statutes.
act in a manner that subjects them to personal
liability, in light of the fact that the
corporation’s articles of incorporation
provided for the maximum protection from
personal liability allowed under law?
Holding: The defendants’ actions were not
protected under the director protection
statutes. The motion to dismiss was denied.
Reasoning: In Washington and Delaware,
directors are protected against general claims
for breach of the duty of care when pursuant to
state law a corporation adopts a director
protection provision into its articles of
incorporation. However, if directors breach the
duty of care intentionally, knowingly, or in bad
faith, the director protection statutes will not
shield them from personal liability. The plaintiff
listed several factors showing that the defendant
officers and directors acted in bad faith, in that
they knew or should have known about Kevin
Lawrence’s wrongful acts. Plaintiff sufficiently
stated claims for negligent or bad faith
performance of duties and breach of duty under
Washington law and Delaware law.
Note for Discussion: On July 28, 2003, Kevin
Lawrence pled guilty to three felony counts of
conspiracy, securities fraud, and wire fraud.
On November 25, 2003, he was sentenced to
20 years of imprisonment, to be followed by 3
years of supervised release, and was ordered
to pay more than $91,000,000 in restitution to
the Receiver.
REVIEW QUESTIONS
1. Where does a committee get its
authority?
Who is ultimately responsible for the acts
of the committee?
2. What are the three types of duties a
director owes to the corporation?
• Fiduciary duty