Rare pour être signalé : décision judiciaire en matière de rémunération

Bonjour à toutes et à tous, la décision de la Cour d’appel de l’Ontario Unique Broadband Systems, Inc. (Re), 2014 ONCA 538 . M. McGoey, ancien président du conseil d’administration et dirigeant, a été considéré comme ayant violé ses devoirs fiduciaires et s’est vu privé de plusieurs rémunérations considérées comme excessives (notamment le plan dénoué en actions et les boni). Alors que le conseil d’administration avait accordé ces deux formes de rémunération, les actionnaires s’y sont opposés et ont agi en justice…

Morceaux choisis de cette décision rappelant une évidence : les administrateurs ne sont protégé par la règle de l’appréciation commerciale (la fameuse business judgment rule américaine) uniquement s’ils ont agi de bonne foi :

[43]      In my view, the trial judge’s finding that Mr. McGoey’s breached his fiduciary duties to UBS was well supported in the evidence before her and by the lack of any clear explanation from Mr. McGoey as to how the UBS Board decided to establish the SAR Cancellation Awards and the Bonus Pool. For the reasons set forth below, I see no error in the trial judge’s reasoning and in her conclusion that Mr. McGoey’s actions were driven by self-interest, unsupported by any reasonable or objective criteria, and contrary to the best interests of UBS.

[57]      I also agree with the trial judge’s conclusion that the $0.40 unit value was unjustified and unrealistic. It was notionally based on a transaction with Rogers that was far from certain and which had been terminated at the time when the SAR Cancellation Awards were allocated. What the SAR Cancellation Awards really achieved was the removal of the uncertainty that was part of the SAR Plan. Under this new scheme, the recipients’ awards were not dependant on an increase in the share price, the awards would be granted regardless of the trading price of the shares.  This removal of the uncertainty was to the benefit of the recipients and was of no benefit to the corporation.

[60]      There was no documentation that stipulated the performance factors or criteria by which Mr. McGoey’s performance would be evaluated. The trial judge rejected Mr. McGoey’s evidence that the services he provided for Look qualified as the criteria under which he could be awarded a bonus by UBS.  She concluded that, when the UBS bonus was awarded, there were, in fact, no criteria.

[69]      The trial judge also rejected Mr. McGoey’s argument that his actions were undertaken with the assistance of independent legal advice from Mr. McCarthy and, therefore, could not constitute a breach of his fiduciary duties. I agree with the trial judge’s conclusion on this issue. The UBS Board never sought an opinion from Mr. McCarthy regarding the reasonableness of the changes to the SAR Plan and the bonuses. Indeed, the evidence is clear that Mr. McCarthy did not have any information during the relevant time regarding the quantity of the Bonus Award or the SAR Cancellation Awards allocated to Mr. McGoey or to any other director or officer of UBS.

[72]      It must be remembered that the business judgment rule is really just a rebuttable presumption that directors or officers act on an informed basis, in good faith, and in the best interests of the corporation. Courts will defer to business decisions honestly made, but they will not sit idly by when it is clear that a board is engaged in conduct that has no legitimate business purpose and that is in breach of its fiduciary duties. In the present case, there was ample evidence upon which the trial judge could base her conclusion that the presumption had been rebutted.

Bonne lecture et à la prochaine…

Ivan Tchotourian

Ce contenu a été mis à jour le 19 juin 2015 à 10 h 30 min.