ARTICLE
24 August 2020

D.C. Circuit Rejects Fiduciary Shield Doctrine, Holding Corporate Officials Can Be Subject To Personal Jurisdiction In Their Individual Capacities For Their Conduct As Corporate Officials

CG
Cahill Gordon & Reindel LLP

Contributor

With a history of legal innovation dating back to the firm’s founding in 1919, Cahill Gordon & Reindel LLP is trusted by market-leading financial institutions, companies and their boards to manage significant litigation, regulatory matters and transactions. The firm is based in New York with offices in London and Washington, D.C.
The prevailing view at the time had been that the doctrine arises from the Due Process Clause of the U.S. Constitution.
United States Litigation, Mediation & Arbitration
To print this article, all you need is to be registered or login on Mondaq.com.

In the 1960s, courts recognized the fiduciary shield doctrine, which protects corporate officials sued in their individual capacities from being subjected to personal jurisdiction based on their conduct on behalf of the corporation. The doctrine was developed in part because courts perceived that it was "unfair to force an individual to defend a suit brought against him personally in a forum with which his only relevant contacts are acts performed not for his own benefit but for the benefit of his employer." Marine Midland Bank, N.A. v. Miller, 664 F.2d 899, 902 (2d Cir. 1981). The prevailing view at the time had been that the doctrine arises from the Due Process Clause of the U.S. Constitution.

In 1984, the Supreme Court in Calder v. Jones, 465 U.S. 783 (1984), and Keeton v. Hustler Magazine, Inc., 465 U.S. 770 (1984), without specifically addressing whether the fiduciary shield doctrine arises from the Due Process Clause, held that corporate officials could be subject to personal jurisdiction in their individual capacity for conduct on behalf of their employers. Since then, the majority view has been that the fiduciary shield doctrine does not arise from the Due Process Clause.

On June 30, 2020, in Urquhart-Bradley v. Mobley, 964 F.3d 36 (D.C. Cir. 2020), the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit followed the majority view, holding that the fiduciary shield doctrine does not arise from the Due Process Clause. The Court held that, in analyzing personal jurisdiction, all of an individual's "suit-related contacts—professional and personal—factor into the analysis." If this view continues, the decision means that the Constitution does not protect corporate officials from being sued in an individual capacity for conduct on behalf of their employers. However, the possibility remains that the doctrine can be required by state long-arm statutes.

D.C. Circuit Rejects Fiduciary Shield Doctrine, Holding Corporate Officials Can Be Subject to Personal Jurisdiction in Their Individual Capacities for Their Conduct as Corporate Officials.pdf (pdf | 91.50 KB )

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

ARTICLE
24 August 2020

D.C. Circuit Rejects Fiduciary Shield Doctrine, Holding Corporate Officials Can Be Subject To Personal Jurisdiction In Their Individual Capacities For Their Conduct As Corporate Officials

United States Litigation, Mediation & Arbitration

Contributor

With a history of legal innovation dating back to the firm’s founding in 1919, Cahill Gordon & Reindel LLP is trusted by market-leading financial institutions, companies and their boards to manage significant litigation, regulatory matters and transactions. The firm is based in New York with offices in London and Washington, D.C.
See More Popular Content From

Mondaq uses cookies on this website. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies as set out in our Privacy Policy.

Learn More