Sixth
Circuit Upholds Breach of Fiduciary Duty Claims and Multi-Million Dollar Judgment
In the decision rendered last
week by the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, it affirmed a decision against
certain employees who set up a company that was competing with their employer. Nedschroef Detroit Corp. v. Bemas
Enterprises LLC, Case No. 15-1728 (Sixth Cir. April 22, 2016).
Marc Rigole and Bernard LePage
were employees of Nedschroef Detroit Corporation. In 2011, Rigole and LePage formed Bemas
Enterprises LLC to provide replacement parts for fastening machines that were
manufactured in Europe by a Nedschroef affiliate. The catch was that their employer had exactly
the same business purpose. Upon learning of the competing venture they had
organized, Nedschroef terminated with Rigole and LePage and filed suit against
them. Ultimately the district dourt granted summary judgment to Nedschroef on a
variety of theories including breach of the duty of loyalty, breach of
fiduciary duty and misappropriation of corporate opportunities, and awarded
damages in the amount of $3,680,344.18. Further, LePage and Rigole were
permanently enjoined from providing replacement parts or services for the Nedschroef
fastener machines.
On appeal, the Sixth Circuit
handily rejected the defendant's suggestion that their LLC Bemas was not
competing with Nedscrhroef because it was only providing services to those people
whose quotes from Nedschroef had been rejected. As an aside, the irony seems to
have been lost upon them in that both LePage and Rigole, in the course of their
employment with each off, had authority to issue quotations to customers.
The court also affirmed the finding
that the defendants had misappropriated Nedschroef 's proprietary secrets,
including by downloading from its proprietary and password-protected computer
system various drawings of replacement parts.
As another aside, it is curious
that Rigole and LePage, while asserting that they had done nothing wrong, had set up Bemas
Enterprises LLC's under the names of their respective wives.
Ultimately, employees owe a fiduciary
duty of loyalty to their employers. That duty precludes the employees, other
than with respect to their agreed compensation, to benefit from the property
and affairs of their employer. Clearly Rigole and LePage never learned of these
limitations. Presumably a judgment in excess of $3.6 million and a permanent
injunction will bring them up to speed.
No comments:
Post a Comment