The research uncovered suggests the board may have broken fiduciary responsibility and may be held legally liable for leaving Brian MacDonald in place for so long, given the clear evidence available of the damage he was causing. This, from nolo.com/legal - in particular the reference to gross negligence. Any attorneys reading this - could the bord or MacDonald be held liable under the gross negligence consideration?
(www.nolo.com)
Fiduciary Duty of Care
In a corporate environment, both officers and directors are expected to use appropriate care and diligence when acting on behalf of their corporation. They should exercise reasonable prudence in carrying out their duties to achieve the best interests of the corporation. An officer or director may be held personally liable for failing to exercise reasonable or ordinary care under the circumstances. For example, a lack of due care may be shown when an officer or director fails to undertake a reasonable review of a corporate matter, to regularly attend board meetings, or to adequately supervise staff which ends up damaging the corporation.
Under the business judgment rule, an officer or director may not held liable for business decisions made in good faith and with reasonable care that turn out to harm corporate interests. The courts will defer to erroneous business judgments, provided that the officers or directors did not show gross negligence in their review and decision-making process. Without this rule in place, many individuals would be unwilling to serve as officers and directors and business people might be reluctant to take commercial risks that could benefit a corporation in the long run.
Fiduciary Duty of Good Faith and Fair Dealing
This fiduciary duty is closely aligned with the duties of care, loyalty, and obedience. Under this duty, officers and directors must act with honesty, good faith, and fairness when handling corporate obligations. This continuing duty runs through their daily tasks and operation of the corporation.