Crown v. Hawkins Co., Ltd.
1996 Ida. App. LEXIS 4, 910 P.2d 786, 128 Idaho 114 (1996)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A corporate director performs their statutory duty of care if they act in good faith, in a manner they reasonably believe to be in the corporation's best interest, and with such care as an ordinarily prudent person in a like position would use under similar circumstances, which includes a right to rely on information from qualified officers, employees, or experts. A director's external professional background does not elevate this statutory standard of care. A trial court's discretionary denial of a motion to disqualify counsel, particularly when filed late and posing significant prejudice to the client, will be upheld if the court acts within legal standards and by an exercise of reason.
Facts:
- In 1978, Hawkins Co., Ltd. (the “warehouse”) was incorporated, with Robert Blass, Jerry Hawkins, and William Nungester (and their spouses) each receiving one-third of the shares and serving as directors; Hawkins was president and general manager, while Blass and Nungester were not active in day-to-day management.
- From 1983 through 1988, Wayne Crown, Clark Bean, and Steve Bean (the “Growers”) delivered their bean crops to the warehouse, which also acted as a broker.
- From 1978 through July 31, 1987, CPA Tom Schabot conducted uncertified financial reviews and certified audits of the warehouse twice yearly, consistently finding that grower and financial records balanced with the physical inventory.
- By April 1987, the warehouse began experiencing a cash flow shortage, and in August or September 1987, First Security Bank discovered Blass and Hawkins had engaged in a $2.2 million check kiting scheme; Nungester learned of this from the bank, instructed them to stop, and they complied, without further inquiry or notification to authorities by Nungester.
- Between 1986 and 1988, Nungester made several checks payable to the warehouse for bean purchases he never possessed, which Schabot later recharacterized as loans to provide temporary cash flow.
- In late summer 1987, Jerre Hills, a new warehouse employee, discovered negative balances on Grower Lot Sheets and informed Nungester, who confronted Hawkins; Hawkins provided explanations Nungester found satisfactory, and Nungester did not investigate further.
- In January 1988, Schabot’s interim financial statements revealed large, increasing accounts receivable that Hawkins had neither billed nor charged interest on; the board directed Hawkins to bill and collect, but Hawkins purposely failed to undertake collection of some accounts without the board’s knowledge.
- In May 1988, Hawkins requested a DOA inspection; prior to it, Hawkins moved boxes filled with culls and dirt into the warehouse. Inspector David Sparrow found a 6,475-sack pinto bean shortage, which Hawkins explained to Sparrow’s satisfaction as beans for seed, but the culls and dirt were not discovered.
- On September 29, 1988, Schabot informed Nungester of audit problems, stating he could not reconcile physical inventory with books; Nungester and Schabot met Hawkins, who promised documentation to reconcile the shortage. Neither Nungester nor Schabot investigated further while awaiting documentation, and the warehouse continued to receive 1988 bean crops.
- On November 14, 1988, Hawkins collapsed and was hospitalized; the promised documentation to reconcile shortages was never obtained.
- On November 22, 1988, Nungester called the DOA due to the unreconcilable shortage, leading to the warehouse being placed under supervision and the determination of a 110,000 hundred weight bean shortage; the warehouse subsequently filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy.
Procedural Posture:
- On December 1, 1988, Wayne Crown, Clark Bean, and Steve Bean (the "Growers") filed a class action suit in district court against Hawkins Co., Ltd., the Idaho Department of Agriculture (DOA), Klein Brothers, and directors Robert Blass, Jerry Hawkins, and William Nungester.
- On November 7, 1990, Hawkins Co., Ltd., was dismissed from the suit pursuant to stipulation after filing for Chapter 11 bankruptcy.
- On November 13, 1990, the DOA was dismissed from the action by the district court due to the Growers' failure to comply with the Idaho Torts Claims Act; the Growers later filed a separate negligence action against the DOA, which was initially granted summary judgment for the DOA by the district court but later reversed in part by the Idaho Supreme Court on appeal (`Crown v. State`, 127 Idaho 175, 898 P.2d 1086 (1995)).
- The district court entered summary judgment on behalf of Klein Bros. Ltd., and this order was affirmed by the Idaho Court of Appeals on interlocutory appeal (`Crown v. Klein Bros.`, 121 Idaho 942, 829 P.2d 532 (Ct.App.1991)).
- Robert Blass filed Chapter 11 bankruptcy and was discharged; the action against him was dismissed on July 13, 1992.
- Jerry Hawkins also filed for bankruptcy and was discharged.
- The remaining claim against William Nungester was based on a theory of negligence under the Bonded Warehouse Law, with the parties stipulating to bifurcate liability and damage issues.
- After a bench trial on the liability issue, the district court held that Nungester was not negligent in his duties as a director and did not breach any duty owed to the Growers.
- The Growers appealed the district court's judgment and its pretrial order denying their motion to disqualify Nungester's counsel.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
1. Does a corporate director breach their statutory duty of care under Idaho Code § 30-1-35 by relying on explanations from company officers and reports from financial experts, even when aware of financial irregularities and negative account balances, if those explanations appear reasonable and prior expert audits showed no issues? 2. Does a corporate director who is also a lawyer owe a higher standard of care than an 'ordinarily prudent person in a like position' under Idaho Code § 30-1-35? 3. Did the district court abuse its discretion by denying a pretrial motion to disqualify the defendant-director's counsel, filed close to trial, where the counsel's law firm still bore the defendant's name and was alleged to have a financial interest in the outcome?
Opinions:
Majority - Walters, Chief Judge
No, William Nungester did not breach his statutory duty of care as a director, nor did the district court abuse its discretion in denying the motion to disqualify counsel. Idaho Code § 30-1-35 establishes a director's duties as performing in good faith, in a manner reasonably believed to be in the corporation's best interests, and with the care of an ordinarily prudent person in a like position under similar circumstances. Crucially, the statute permits reliance on information, opinions, reports, or statements from officers, employees, counsel, or public accountants whom the director reasonably believes to be reliable and competent. The district court's factual findings, supported by substantial evidence, indicated Nungester acted within these bounds by relying on CPA Schabot's consistently positive audits until 1988, DOA inspections, and Hawkins' explanations for discrepancies, which were deemed satisfactory at the time by Nungester and the experts. When issues like check kiting or negative balances arose, Nungester addressed them by confronting Hawkins or consulting with the relevant experts. The appellate court defers to the trial court's assessment of witness credibility for both Schabot and Sparrow. Furthermore, the court held that Nungester’s status as a lawyer did not impose a higher standard of care on him as a corporate director; the 'like position' language in the statute refers to the role of a director, not their external professional qualifications. Regarding the motion to disqualify Nungester’s counsel, the district court acted within its discretion. Disqualification motions, especially when brought by an opposing party and filed with a significant lack of promptness (nearly five years into litigation and mere weeks before trial), are viewed with caution. The district court properly weighed the substantial prejudice to Nungester of losing long-standing counsel against the alleged ethical concerns, and its decision to deny the motion while deferring purely ethical determinations to the Idaho State Bar was a reasoned exercise of its discretion.
Analysis:
This case significantly clarifies the parameters of a corporate director's duty of care under Idaho Code § 30-1-35, particularly regarding the appropriate extent of reliance on internal management and external experts. It establishes that a director's professional background, such as being a lawyer, does not inherently raise their standard of care beyond the statutory 'ordinarily prudent person in a like position' within their directorial role. Furthermore, the ruling provides important precedent on the discretionary nature of counsel disqualification motions, underscoring that courts will weigh the prejudice to the client and the timeliness of the motion heavily against alleged conflicts of interest, especially when the motion originates from an opposing party. This case reinforces the trial court's authority to manage litigation efficiently while ensuring fairness and deferring professional ethical determinations to appropriate bar associations.
