Opinion ID: 2378317
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: CAC's Equitable Remedy: The Ban From Board Service

Text: CAC's complaint also sought an order permanently barring Henrichs from reelection to the Board of Directors of [CAC] because of his conduct while serving as chairman of the board. Relying on the jury's findings and on its own review of the evidence presented at trial, the superior court entered findings of fact, conclusions of law, and a post-trial order banning Henrichs from serving on CAC's board of directors for five years. The order described the actions Henrichs took during his term as serious and egregious and as the type of misconduct sufficient to impose a bar against future service. Henrichs appeals both the jury's finding that he breached his fiduciary duties and the superior court's order banning him from serving on CAC's board for five years. He claims that: (1) the superior court erroneously failed to instruct the jury on what he refers to as the statutory safe harbor defense in AS 10.06.450(b); (2) his decision to issue the late-bird proxy solicitation letter was protected by the business judgment rule and therefore he could only be held liable if found grossly negligent; (3) the superior court should have instructed the jury on his equitable defenses and considered what actions CAC took toward him; and (4) the superior court erred when it barred him from serving on CAC's board for five years by (a) relying on an erroneous jury verdict, (b) failing to apply the statutory safe harbor provisions, (c) applying an ordinary negligence standard to review his business decisions, and (d) declining to consider his equitable defenses.