• HOME
  • SPEAKING ENGAGEMENTS
  • PROFILE
  • ALLEN MATKINS
  • CONTACT
Print Email Shortlink

Court Can’t Appoint Unwilling Director To Defend Post Winding-Up Claims

By Keith Paul Bishop on November 17, 2011 in Nevada Corporations

 

 The directors of a Nevada corporation become trustees upon its dissolution.  NRS 78.590(1).  The creditors or stockholders may apply to the district court either to continue the directors trustees [sic] in office or appoint one or more persons to act as receivers.  NRS 78.600.  What happens when a director has resigned and is unwilling to continue service?  This was the question addressed last week by the Nevada Supreme Court in Canarelli v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 127 Nev. Adv. Op. 72 (2011).

American West Homes, Inc. was a Nevada corporation.  In 2004, it filed certificate of dissolution with the Nevada Secretary of State pursuant to NRS 78.580 and dissolved.  After dissolution, some of its directors remained as trustees pursuant to NRS 78.585.  The winding up process was not completed until March 2008.  Thereafter, two groups of homeowners filed construction defect complaints against American West.  These homeowners served their complaints on one American West’s former directors, a Mr. Lawrence Canarelli.  Because Mr. Canarelli was no longer a director, the homeowners asked the court to appoint him as trustee.  The court “reluctantly” did so and Mr. Canarelli petitioned the Nevada Supreme Court for a writ of mandamus directing the district court to set aside the appointment.

The Nevada Supreme Court found that while NRS 78.600 authorized the district court to continue the directors trustees in office as provided in NRS 78.590, nothing in NRS 78.590 gives a director trustee the power to defend against post-dissolution claims that were unknown until after the corporation had completed its winding up.  Thus, the Supreme Court found that the district court had abused its discretion in appointing Mr. Canarelli.

Here’s some points that are worth noting:

  • The Nevada legislature amended NRS 78.585 and NRS 78.590 in 2011 but the Supreme Court found that these amendment did not affect its analysis.  2011 Nev. Stat., ch. 455, §§ 50-51.
  • The use of the term “trustee” had caused the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals to apply the general law of trusts to the activities of directors after dissolution.  Miller v. Wahyou, 235 F.2d 612, 616 n.4 (9th Cir. 1956).  In the 2011 amendments to NRS 78.590, the Nevada legislature has added a new subsection (3) specifying “In winding up and liquidating the business and affairs of the corporation, the trustees have the duties imposed upon them, and the benefit of the presumptions established, by NRS 78.138.”
  • Mr. Canarelli raised, but the Supreme Court declined to address, the argument that his appointment violates the 13th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
  • As a result of this opinion, plaintiffs are likely to face a real practical problem when trying to assert post-dissolution claims against corporations that have successfully wound up their affairs. 
  • The Nevada Supreme Court refused to overturn Beazer Homes of Nev., Inc. v. District Court, 120 Nev. 575, 97 P.3d 1132 (2004).
beazer homes v. District CourtCanarelli v. Eighth Judicial District CourtdissolutionNRS 78.585NRS 78.590NRS 78.600winding up
  • Related Stories
  • Most Popular
  • Court Holds Non-Parties May Enforce Arbitration Agreement Even Though The General Rule Is That They Can’t
  • Two Very Good Reasons To Visit The Department’s Website
  • Sealing A Contract May Mean Nothing Or 20 Years!
  • Ever Wonder What Money Is? California Has Some Answers And I Have Some Questions
  • Bitcoin And The Corporations Code
  • If You’re Relying On The Signature Of Two Officers, You May Want To Think Again
  • Conflict Minerals Bill In Suspense File (For Now)
  • Concurrent Jurisdiction Found For Covered Class Actions
  • Nevada Supreme Court Adopts Delaware Approach To Fair Value Burden Of Proof
  • SEC Proposes John Wilkes Booth Rules
  • If I Were A Carpenter, I’d Build A Better Proxy
  • CalPERS’ Annus Horribilis: How Much Worse Will It Get?
← Previous Next →

AUTHOR

Keith Paul Bishop
Partner
(949) 553-1313
kbishop@allenmatkins.com
CONTACT ME

RECOGNITION

NEWSLETTER

TOPICS

  • Accountants
  • Administrative Procedure
  • Attorney-Client Privilege/Work Product
  • Broker-Dealers
  • California Securities Laws
  • California Sui Generis
  • CalPERS/CalSTRS
  • Choice of Law/Conflict of Law
  • Corporate Governance
  • Department of Corporations
  • Derivative Suits
  • Enforcement & Investigations
  • Fairness Hearings
  • Finance Lenders
  • Financial Institutions
  • Investment Advisers
  • JOBS Act
  • Legislation
  • Limited Liability Companies
  • Mergers & Acquisitions
  • Nevada Corporations
  • Non-Compete Agreements
  • Partnerships
  • Professional Responsibility
  • Pseudo-Foreign Corporations
  • Public Records Act/FOIA
  • Secretary of State
  • Securities Litigation
  • Uncategorized
  • Video

YOUTUBE

TWITTER

FACEBOOK

CALENDAR

November 2011
M T W T F S S
« Oct   Dec »
 123456
78910111213
14151617181920
21222324252627
282930  

Copyright © 2013 California Corporate & Securities Law.

Powered by WordPress and News.

  • follow:follow:
  • Become my Facebook friend Become my Facebook friend
  • Connect with me Connect with me
  • RSS RSS
  • Tweet with me Tweet with me