Opinion ID: 1004846
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: 2d at 569 n.3.

Text: Although Hayes was obligated to be candid with Crawford in preparing to establish a competing enterprise, liability for breach of fiduciary duty is not predicated upon her failure to make full disclosure, but rather upon ‘some particular circumstance which rendered the nondisclosure harmful to [Crawford] or upon [Hayes’] wrongful conduct apart from the omission.’ Maryland Metals, 382 A.2d at 570 n.4 (quoting Bancroft-Whitney Co. v. Glen, 411 P.2d 921, 935-36 (Ca. 1966)). Indeed, Hayes was only bound to reveal the precise nature of h[er] plans to [Crawford if s]he acted inimically to [Crawford’s] interest beyond the mere failure to disclose. Id. at 573. 4 CRAWFORD & CO. v. M. HAYES & ASSOCIATES The district court correctly concluded that Hayes did not breach any fiduciary duty by recruiting the mid-level managers who formed her team of supervisors. It based this conclusion on the fact that Hayes worked as a team with the other departing managers in forming the competing business; Crawford was aware of the possibility that Hayes might resign and form such a business; Hayes did not take any corporate opportunities for herself; and she continued to perform her job as Crawford’s branch manager in a satisfactory manner up until the day she resigned. Hayes did not engage in any unfair, fraudulent or wrongful conduct . . . which impacted on the economic interest of [Crawford] in some detrimental fashion, sufficient to constitute a breach of fiduciary duty; nor did Hayes act inimically to [Crawford’s] interest. Id. at 571, 573. We affirm the judgment of the district court. AFFIRMED