Seraph Garrison, LLC v. Garrison
Decision Date | 19 April 2016 |
Docket Number | No. COA14–1166.,COA14–1166. |
Citation | 787 S.E.2d 398 |
Court | North Carolina Court of Appeals |
Parties | SERAPH GARRISON, LLC, derivatively on behalf of GARRISON ENTERPRISES, INC., Plaintiff, v. Cameron GARRISON, Defendant, v. Garrison Enterprises, Inc., Nominal Defendant. |
Hamilton Stephens Steele & Martin, PLLC, Charlotte, by Mark R. Kutny and Erik M. Rosenwood, and Bryan Cave LLP, by Nicole J. Wade (admittee pro hac vice), for plaintiff-appellant.
No brief filed for defendant-appellee.
Seraph Garrison, LLC (“plaintiff”) appeals from an order and judgment denying its claims, which were brought derivatively and on behalf of Garrison Enterprises, Inc. (“GEI” or “the corporation”), against Cameron Garrison (“defendant”). For the reasons that follow, we affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand for further proceedings.
GEI, a North Carolina corporation, was founded by defendant in July 2000. The corporation primarily worked with government entities to supply health inspection software for the input of data for various types of restaurants and government agencies; it also sold software and data related to restaurant inspections, and other types of inspections, to private companies. Defendant was President and CEO of GEI from its founding until the corporation's board of directors (the “Board”) terminated his employment in December 2010. During this time period, defendant's father, mother, sister, and three brothers were employed at GEI. In his role as President and CEO, defendant was tasked with ensuring that all required tax payments on behalf of GEO were made to the United States Department of Revenue and the North Carolina Department of Revenue. Defendant was also responsible for making contributions to GEI's 401(k) Plan.
On 20 December 2010, plaintiff, a Georgia limited liability company and shareholder of GEI, sent a demand letter to GEI's Board requesting an investigation regarding, inter alia, defendant's “potential breaches of fiduciary duty.” Three days later, the Board terminated defendant's employment with GEI but it refused to take further action against him. Responding to the Board's refusal, plaintiff instituted a derivative action on behalf of GEI to recover losses that purportedly resulted from defendant's conduct during his tenure as President and CEO. In its verified complaint, which was filed in Mecklenburg County on 22 July 2011, plaintiff alleged that defendant breached his fiduciary duties to GEI, committed actual fraud against the corporation, and engaged in unfair and deceptive trade practices.
Specifically, plaintiff alleged that for “various periods beginning in 2008 and ending in 2010,” defendant stopped remitting payroll taxes to the federal and North Carolina state governments. Plaintiff further alleged that defendant failed to make required contributions to GEI's 401(k) Plan from February 2008 until his termination in December 2010. Finally, plaintiff alleged that defendant deceived the Board by misrepresenting the terms of a licensing contract he negotiated with Ecolab, a company that sells cleaning supplies to the hospitality, food service, and health care industries. Based on these allegations, plaintiff sought to recover damages based on unjust enrichment and the imposition of resulting and constructive trusts. Plaintiff also sought punitive damages.
Subsequently, the case was designated as a complex business case and assigned to Judge Calvin E. Murphy, Special Superior Court Judge for Complex Business Cases. On 23 November 2011, defendant filed an answer and counterclaims. When the matter came on for trial in June 2014, defendant failed to appear. As a result, Judge Murphy conducted a bench trial, where plaintiff presented testimony from Rahul Saxena (“Saxena”), who became GEI's interim President and CEO upon defendant's termination, and Paul Saltzman (“Saltzman”), who the trial court designated an expert in business valuation, income tax, and accounting. After trial, the court entered an order and judgment that granted plaintiff's claim for breach of fiduciary duty based on defendant's misrepresentations regarding the Ecolab contract. However, all of plaintiff's remaining claims were denied, and no damages were awarded on any claims.1 The trial court Plaintiff appeals.
“The standard of review on appeal from a judgment entered after a non-jury trial is whether there is competent evidence to support the trial court's findings of fact and whether the findings support the conclusions of law and ensuing judgment.” Cartin v. Harrison, 151 N.C.App. 697, 699, 567 S.E.2d 174, 176 (2002) (quotations omitted). “Where such competent evidence exists, this Court is bound by the trial court's findings of fact even if there is also other evidence in the record that would sustain findings to the contrary.” Willen v. Hewson, 174 N.C.App. 714, 718, 622 S.E.2d 187, 190 (2005) (citation omitted). The trial court's conclusions of law, however, are subject to de novo review. Id. (citation omitted).
As an initial matter we note that the trial court denied plaintiff's unfair and deceptive trade practices claim based on its conclusion that N.C. Gen.Stat. § 75–1.1 did not apply to this case. We agree with this conclusion. See White v. Thompson, 364 N.C. 47, 53, 691 S.E.2d 676, 680 (2010) ( ). Furthermore, since defendant does not challenge the court's conclusion on appeal, he has abandoned the issue. N.C.R.App. P. 28(b)(6) (2015) (). Thus, we affirm the trial court's denial of plaintiff's unfair and deceptive trade practices claim.
Before addressing plaintiff's fiduciary duty and fraud claims, we begin by noting some principles that should animate any judicial evaluation of corporate conduct. First, under North Carolina law, corporate officers with discretionary authority must discharge their duties:
N.C. Gen.Stat. § 55–8–42(a) (2015). Corporate directors are charged with the same standard of conduct. Id. § 55–8–30(a)(1)–(3). Although the word “fiduciary” is not used in these provisions, the Official Comment to section 55–8–30 explains Consequently, the earlier cases that examine and delineate the duties of directors and officers continue to be effective.
Under these cases, corporate directors and officers act in a fiduciary capacity in the sense that they owe the corporation the duties of loyalty and due care. Belk v. Belk's Dep't Store, Inc., 250 N.C. 99, 103, 108 S.E.2d 131, 135 (1959) ( ); Loy v. Lorm Corp., 52 N.C.App. 428, 436, 278 S.E.2d 897, 903 (1981) ( ); Pierce Concrete, Inc. v. Cannon Realty & Const. Co., 77 N.C.App. 411, 413–14, 335 S.E.2d 30, 31 (1985) ( ).
Subdivision 55–8–42(a)(2) outlines the standard by which an officer's duty of care is measured. Its specific language—in a “like a position” and “under similar circumstances”—acknowledges officers' that responsibilities will vary from corporation to corporation. The same holds true for the corporate decision-making processes that are employed. Even so, subdivision 55–8–42(a)(2) also imposes an affirmative duty on officers: it requires them to assume an active and direct role in the matters that are under their authority. Anthony v. Jeffress, 172 N.C. 378, 379, 90 S.E. 414, 415 (1916) ) ; F–F Milling Co. v. Sutton, 9 N.C.App. 181, 184, 175 S.E.2d 746, 748 (1970) ( ).
Subdivision 55–8–42(a)(3) codifies the requirement that an officer always discharge the responsibilities of the office “with undivided loyalty” to the corporation. Meiselman v. Meiselman, 309 N.C. 279, 307, 307 S.E.2d 551, 568 (1983). The corporate law duty of loyalty also imposes an affirmative obligation: a fiduciary must strive to advance the best interests of the corporation. In re The Walt Disney Co. Derivative Litig., 2004 WL 2050138, at *5 n. 49 (Del.Ch. Sept. 10, 2004) ) (citation omitted).
Second, while subsection 55–8–42(a) requires an officer to act in good faith, this concept...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Duffy v. Jon Camp
... ... interests of the corporation ... N.C. Gen. Stat. § 55-8-42(a); see also Seraph ... Garrison, LLC v. Garrison , 247 N.C.App. 115, 119, 787 ... S.E.2d 398, 403 (2016) ... ...
-
In re Hamrick
...Additionally, the deceived party must have reasonably relied on the allegedly false representations. Seraph Garrison, LLC v. Garrison , 247 N.C.App. 115, 787 S.E.2d 398, 408 (2016) (citing Forbis v. Neal , 361 N.C. 519, 527, 649 S.E.2d 382, 387 (2007) ). The evidence presented at the hearin......
-
Barnes v. Perry
... ... against the claim of the beneficiary of the constructive ... Seraph Garrison, LLC ex rel. Garrison Enters., Inc. v ... Garrison , 787 S.E.2d 398, 410 (N.C. Ct. App ... ...
-
Fogartie v. Edrington, 17 CVS 12698
... ... corporation." G.S. § 55-8-30(a); accord Seraph ... Garrison, LLC v. Garrison , 787 S.E.2d 398, 2016 N.C.App ... LEXIS 384, at *8 (N.C. Ct. App ... ...