Business as Usual?

Louisiana has updated its corporate laws by adopting legislation modeled off the Model Business Corporation Act ("MBCA"). The new set of laws is named "The Louisiana Business Corporation Act" and will replace Louisiana's Business Corporation Law, which was enacted in 1968. The change occurred on May 30, 2014 when the Governor signed HB319 into law as Act 328. The new provisions will go into effect on January 1, 2015.

The MBCA is a set of model laws created in 1950, and are regularly amended and updated by the American Bar Association's Committee on Corporate Laws. The MBCA is meant to govern the functioning of public and private corporations. It has been adopted in whole or in part by a majority of the states.

Representative Franklin J. Foil (R - Baton Rouge) originally introduced HB408 in the 2013 Regular Session to adopt laws modeled off the MBCA based on the recommendation of the Louisiana State Law Institute. However, this bill died toward the end of the session. Thereafter, Rep. Foil introduced HB319 during the 2014 Regular Session, which was passed, thereby adopting much of the MBCA.

The newly adopted laws constitute a comprehensive update to Louisiana's corporate law system and will bring substantial change in some areas. Merely by way of example, the law provides some protections to minority shareholders in closely-held corporation who are being "oppressed."

It will be interesting to see the extent to which Louisiana courts will seek guidance from the decisions of other states that have operated under similar laws for many years.

The longstanding rule that the analysis for "piercing the corporate veil" of an LLC is substantially the same as the analysis for piercing the veil of corporations has been called into question by the recent Louisiana Supreme Court decision in Ogea v. Travis Merritt and Merrit Construction, LLC, 2013-1085, --- So.3d ---. In Ogea, the Court addressed "the extent of the limitation of liability afforded to a member of an LLC" and the statutory basis for exceptions to this limited liability.

Typical of a veil piercing case, the Ogea Court began its discussion by citing familiar Louisiana cases on the topic: Riggins v. Dixie Shoring Co., Inc., 590 So.2d 1164 (La. 1991) and the more recent Charming Charlie, Inc. v. Perkins Rowe Associates, L.L.C., 11-2254 (La. App. 1 Cir. 7/10/12), 97 So.3d 595. However, the similarities stopped there.

The Court noted that traditional veil piercing doctrine was not invoked by the lower courts or the plaintiff. Instead, the Court's analysis turned on the interpretation of an infrequently cited statute within Title 12 that addresses the limitation of liability for LLC members. La. R.S. 12:1320(A) states that the liability of members and managers of an LLC "shall at all times be determined solely and exclusively by the provisions of this Chapter." Subsection (B) provides that members and managers are generally not liable for the debts, obligations, or liabilities of the LLC. Subsection (D) prescribes the exceptions to this limitation of liability, to include fraud, breach of professional duty, and any other negligent or wrongful act by the member or manager.

Addressing this statute as a matter of first impression, the Ogea Court applied the statute to the facts of the case. Merritt Construction, LLC was hired to build a home for plaintiff, Mary Ogea. As part of the process, Ms. Ogea requested that she have a friend prepare the site for the foundation. Travis Merritt, the sole member of Merritt Construction, LLC, informed Ms. Ogea that having someone else prepare the site would waive the warranty. Mr. Merritt subsequently operated the bulldozer to prepare the site for a subcontractor to pour the concrete slab. A dispute arose when a concrete contractor informed Ms. Ogea of problems with the home's foundation. Under these facts, the Court concluded Mr. Merritt was not personally liable under the exclusive exceptions to limited liability found in La. R.S. 12:1320(D).

The first exception, fraud, was rejected because no evidence in the record supported a finding that Mr. Merritt committed fraud.

Turning to the next exception, the Court also rejected the argument that plaintiff breached a professional duty as the sole member of the construction company. The professions recognized in Louisiana's corporate laws do not include individuals who perform construction work. Thus, Mr. Merritt could not breach a "professional duty" as contemplated by the statute. The Court also noted that the contract at issue only recognized Merritt Construction, LLC as a licensed contractor and did not reference any contractor's license held by Mr. Merritt personally.

Finally, the Court addressed the final exception to limited liability: "negligent or wrongful act." Plaintiff asserted that the term "negligence" in the statute only required proof of a tort by the individual. The Court quickly rejected this argument, noting that such an interpretation would improperly expand the liability of LLC members.

Rather, the Court set forth four factors to assist in the analysis under the last "negligence" exception: 1) whether a member's conduct could be fairly characterized as a traditionally recognized tort; 2) whether a member's conduct could be fairly characterized as a crime, for which a natural person, not a juridical person, could be held culpable; 3) whether the conduct at issue was required by, or was in furtherance of, a contract between the claimant and the LLC; and 4) whether the conduct at issue was done outside the member's capacity as a member.

It appears from the Ogea Court's focus that the prior analysis for "piercing the veil" of an LLC has perhaps been set aside and replaced with a new analysis which considers the exceptions to limited liability listed in La. R.S. 12:1320. However, the Court failed to expressly state that the prior analysis is improper and therefore no longer applicable. For now, it appears that the rules for piercing the veil of an LLC have changed but the true impact of Ogea remains to be seen.

As a general rule in Louisiana, a party involved in business dealings may keep silent, but exceptions exist. Sure, where information is volunteered that may influence the other party’s conduct, that information must be truthful, but is there a duty to disclose information harmful to your position? According to one recent decision, the answer may be “yes.”

In Parkcrest Builders, LLC v. Housing Authority of New Orleans, 2017 WL 193500 (E.D. La. 2017), the court highlighted a wrinkle in the general rule of silence. According to the Parkcrest court, a party to a proposed transaction may have a duty to disclose any information that an ethical person would disclose. This duty complicates matters for a party wishing to disclose as little as possible in order to protect its interests in an arms-length negotiation. It also raises a question: can a party be sued in fraud if they don’t divulge enough information to satisfy the other party?

“Fraud” is defined as a misrepresentation or suppression of a material fact, made with the intent to obtain an unjust advantage or to cause a loss or inconvenience to the other party. La. Civil Code article 1953. In order to prove fraud by silence, there must exist a duty to disclose.

Parkcrest involved a public project to construct new affordable housing units where the owner terminated its contract with the contractor and sued the contractor’s bond company. In the suit against the bond company, the owner alleged fraud and claimed that the bond company improperly concealed (1) its intent to rehire the defaulted contractor to complete the project, and (2) the nature of the bond company’s agreement with the contractor. According to Parkcrest, these allegations, if proven, were sufficient to prove fraud by silence.

Given that the law allows recovery of economic losses arising from a party’s reasonable reliance upon information provided by another, businesses need to be careful in what they say, and even in what they don’t say.