• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to content
  • Skip to primary sidebar

McCarter & English Logo

  • People
  • Services
  • Insights
  • Our Firm
    • Leadership Team
    • Social Justice
    • Diversity & Inclusion
    • Pro Bono
    • Client Service Values
  • Join Us
    • Lawyers
    • Summer Associates
    • Patent Professionals
    • Professional Staff
    • Job Openings
  • Locations
    • Boston
    • Philadelphia
    • East Brunswick
    • Indianapolis
    • Stamford
    • Hartford
    • Trenton
    • Miami
    • Washington, DC
    • New York
    • Wilmington
    • Newark
  • Share

Share

Browse Alphabetically:

  • A
  • B
  • C
  • D
  • E
  • F
  • G
  • H
  • I
  • J
  • K
  • L
  • M
  • N
  • O
  • P
  • Q
  • R
  • S
  • T
  • U
  • V
  • W
  • X
  • Y
  • Z
  • All
Bankruptcy, Restructuring & Litigation
Blockchain, Smart Contracts & Digital Currencies
Business Litigation
Cannabis
Coronavirus Resource Center
Corporate
Crisis Management
Cybersecurity & Data Privacy
Delaware Corporate, LLC & Partnership Law
Design, Fashion & Luxury
E-Discovery & Records Management
Energy & Utilities
Environment & Energy
Financial Institutions
Food & Beverage
Government Affairs
Government Contracts & Global Trade
Government Investigations & White Collar Defense
Healthcare
Immigration
Impact Investing
Insurance Recovery, Litigation & Counseling
Intellectual Property
Labor & Employment
Life Sciences
Manufacturing
Products Liability, Mass Torts & Consumer Class Actions
Proptech
Public Finance
Real Estate
Renewable Energy
Sports & Entertainment
Tax & Employee Benefits
Technology Transactions
Transportation, Logistics & Supply Chain Management
Trusts, Estates & Private Clients
Venture Capital & Emerging Growth Companies
  • Broadcasts
  • Events
  • News
  • Publications
  • View All Insights
Search By:
DE Corporate Law
Main image for Disclaimed Traditional Fiduciary Duties in LLC Agreement Re-imposed on Manager by Contradictory Language in LLC Agreement
Publications|Alert

Disclaimed Traditional Fiduciary Duties in LLC Agreement Re-imposed on Manager by Contradictory Language in LLC Agreement

Delaware Law Update

9.20.2021

The Delaware Court of Chancery’s decision in Cadira Grp. Holdings, LLC Litig. reflects the importance of precision in addressing a manager’s fiduciary duties within the operating agreement of a Delaware limited liability company. In its latest decision concerning contractual fiduciary duties, the court denied the defendants’ bid to dismiss a fiduciary duty claim based on language in the operating agreement. Although the operating agreement evidenced an intent to restrict traditional fiduciary duties, the drafters failed to achieve this objective in a plain and unambiguous manner, thereby causing the manager to owe a duty of care and loyalty to the limited liability company.

Background

Knights Genesis Healthcare, LLC (KGH) and Perseverance Med, LLC formed Cadira Group Holdings, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, to invest in the healthcare industry. KGH was purportedly induced into joining the venture based on the representations of Cadira’s future manager that it had experience in the healthcare field and that his companies have always operated with the utmost integrity and in compliance with the law. An opportunity to acquire a distressed hospital arose, and the parties entered into a series of agreements in furtherance of this purpose.

First, Cadira executed a promissory note, under which KGH loaned Cadira $1 million to acquire the hospital. Second, Cadira and KGH entered into a subscription agreement, which granted KGH a 49 percent membership interest in Cadira in exchange for a $2 million payment, a separate payment of $1 million for working capital, and payment of $1.5 million “on an as needed basis for working capital … subject to the unanimous consent of the [m]embers … .” Third, Cadira’s operating agreement was executed. The operating agreement provided that KGH shall hold a 49 percent member interest in Cadira upon making the payments specified in the subscription agreement. Following the execution of the documents, Cadira’s manager incurred debts on behalf of the company without seeking KGH’s approval, and KGH refused to make the $1.5 million payment for working capital. KGH also learned that various insurers sued Cadira’s manager and his companies for insurance fraud.

Both KGH and Cadira filed suit in the Delaware Court of Chancery. KGH asserted claims for fraud, equitable fraud, breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duties, and unjust enrichment, while Cadira sought a declaration that KGH breached its obligations under the subscription agreement and an injunction compelling KGH to satisfy its funding requirements. Both parties moved for dismissal of the competing complaint.

Analysis

With respect to KGH’s breach of fiduciary duty claim, the operating agreement stated that a manager shall not be liable to the company for acts that do not constitute fraud, gross negligence, willful misconduct, or a material breach of the agreement. Elsewhere, the operating agreement stated that it intended “to restrict the liability and fiduciary duties of [members and managers] to the maximum extent permitted by applicable law.” However, that very section indicated that neither the company, the manager, nor a member shall have a claim against any manager or member, provided that the relevant act does not constitute bad faith, gross negligence, willful misconduct, or actual fraud. KGH argued that these provisions obligated Cadira’s manager to honor certain standards of conduct. The defendants countered that the operating agreement replaced traditional fiduciary duties with contractual duties, for which KGH failed to plead a claim upon which the court could grant relief.

The Delaware Court of Chancery denied the motion to dismiss KGH’s complaint based, in part, on the failure of the drafters of the operating agreement to eliminate fiduciary duties in a plain and unambiguous fashion. “Where an LLC agreement purports to replace traditional fiduciary duties with duties not to engage in bad faith, willful misconduct, or gross negligence, that agreement ‘essentially’ replaces traditional fiduciary duties with identical contractual duties.” Although a separate section of the operating agreement sought to limit the liability and fiduciary responsibilities of the manager to the fullest extent, that same section authorized claims against the manager based on bad faith, gross negligence, willful misconduct, and fraud. While this finding may be confusing, the court was essentially saying that “a contractual duty to refrain from ‘willful misconduct’ or ‘bad faith’ corresponds with the traditional duty of loyalty, and a contractual duty to refrain from ‘gross negligence’ corresponds with the traditional duty of care.” As such, according to the court, the manager had in fact agreed contractually that it “owe[d] the default traditional fiduciary duties of care and loyalty to [the Members]” because, by “green-light[ing] claims against the Manager arising from the ‘Manager’s bad faith, gross negligence, [or] willful misconduct’” after purporting to eliminate fiduciary duties, the operating agreement had effectively reimposed them. This language precluded a finding that the drafters of the operating agreement intended to eliminate fiduciary duties, and thus, the manager may be held liable for a breach of its fiduciary duties under the agreement.

Conclusion

This decision shines a bright light on the operating agreements of Delaware limited liability companies, in which managers and members often attempt to limit or eliminate fiduciary duties within the agreement. Delaware law is clear—the drafters of an operating agreement must use plain and unambiguous language to curtail or abolish fiduciary duties. The failure to address the existence of these duties or, in the alternative, the use of contradictory or ambiguous language in the operating agreement to restrict them will cause the court to hold a manager responsible for a breach of its traditional fiduciary duties. The biggest takeaway here is that if you intend to eliminate fiduciary duties completely, do not eliminate traditional fiduciary duties and replace them with duties not to engage in bad faith, willful misconduct, or gross negligence. Drafters of operating agreements must plan accordingly.

sidebar

pdfemail

Related People

Media item: Philip D. Amoa
Philip D. Amoa

Partner

Media item: Matthew J. Rifino
Matthew J. Rifino

Special Counsel

Related Services

Delaware Corporate, LLC & Partnership Law
Corporate
Subscribe to our Insights
McCarter & English, LLP
Copyright © 2022 McCarter & English, LLP. All Rights Reserved.
  • Login
  • Attorney Advertising
  • Privacy
  • Awards Methodology
  • Contact
  • Subscribe
  • Sitemap

The McCarter & English, LLP website is for informational purposes only. We do not provide legal advice on this website. We can provide legal advice only to our clients in specific inquiries that they address to us. If you are interested in becoming a client, please contact us, but do not send any information about your specific legal question. We cannot serve as your lawyers until we establish an attorney-client relationship, which can occur only after we follow procedures within our firm and after we agree to the terms of the representation.

Accept Cancel