Opinion ID: 2359851
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 24

Heading: order re: motion for post-trial hearing to determine damages/mandamus and cross-motion to amend findings

Text: At the outset, this court notes that the writ of mandamus is abolished in Alaska. [1] Thus the relief sought is really for this court to impose nominal damages and to hold a further hearing on damages after the Board meets to make decisions regarding ANCSA reporting requirements. In the opposition to the motion, defendants have cross-motioned the court to amend its findings regarding fiduciary breach under Civil Rule 52(b), to state that defendants did not breach their fiduciary duties. In their motion, plaintiffs argue there is a per se rule that where there is a breach of fiduciary duties, there must be an award of damages. [2] As explained in Loudon, the per se rule has a very narrow application only to circumstances where directors have breached their disclosure duties in a corporate transaction that has in turn caused impairment to the economic or voting rights of stockholders. [3] Loudon discussed the case of In Re Tri-Star Pictures, Inc. Litigation, where the plaintiffs suffered a proportionate loss of voting power from the issuance of 75 million shares as a result of the breach of fiduciary duty. [4] Thus, it does not appear that the per se rule applies here. More importantly, in Brown v. Dick , the Alaska Supreme Court specifically rejected or further limited the rule set out in Loudon. [5] This court concludes that nominal damages shall not be awarded. In addition to nominal damages, it appears that plaintiffs are seeking a hearing to prove actual damages. Plaintiffs did not make such a claim at trial. The legal theory behind the claim for damages was in the Third Amended Complaint, but plaintiffs chose not to put on any evidence of actual damages at trial. A review of plaintiffs' Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law supports this point, as plaintiffs ask for declaratory and injunctive relief. Accordingly, this court will not re-open the case for a damages trial. [6] In response to the Motion for Post-Trial Hearing, the defendants filed a Cross-Motion to Amend the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. Although an extension of time was granted to plaintiffs to file an opposition to the motion, no opposition was filed. Defendants request that this court add language that [b]ecause the plaintiffs failed to prove that they suffered any damages, an element of the tort of fiduciary breach, this court cannot hold that the defendants' duty was breached. Even without opposition, this court declines to amend the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, as the proposed amendment is an inaccurate statement of the law. There is no dispute that the defendant directors here owed a fiduciary duty to the shareholders, and there was a breach of the duty. There is no evidence of actual damages or causation of those damages. Thus, as discussed above, this court has not awarded any damages to the plaintiffs. Damages, however, are not the only relief sought in this case. Plaintiffs have sought declaratory and injunctive relief. To that extent, as to the three individual directors, this court has granted a remedy, for the individual directors to raise the issue with Leisnoi's Board of Directors. The Motion to Amend is DENIED. DATED Sept 26/08. /s/ Sen K. Tan Superior Court Judge