Skip to main content

malfeasance

Definition

Intentional conduct that is wrongful or unlawful, especially by officials or public employees. Malfeasance is at a higher level of wrongdoing than nonfeasance (failure to act where there was a duty to act) or misfeasance (conduct that is lawful but inappropriate).

Definition from Nolo’s Plain-English Law Dictionary

Intentionally doing something that is illegal. This term is often used when a professional or public official commits an illegal act that interferes with the performance of his or her duties. For example, an elected official who accepts a bribe in exchange for political favors has committed malfeasance. Compare: misfeasance, nonfeasance

Definition provided by Nolo’s Plain-English Law Dictionary.

August 19, 2010, 5:19 pm

 

In Kamin v. American Express Co. (1976), American Express bought Donaldson, Luken, and Jenrette (DLJ) shares for $30 million. The market value of these shares depreciated to $4 million, and American Express declared a dividend to shareholders instead of selling the shares on the market. Plaintiff brought suit, claiming that the board of directors of American Express should have sold the shares and taken a loss; such an action would have saved the company $8 million in taxes. There was no claim for fraud, self-dealing, or bad faith. The Supreme Court held that American Express’s actions were acceptable. Only actions which amounted to the level of malfeasance, and not mere imprudence, could warrant liability of the directors. Thus, the board of directors of companies had broad discretion to make business judgments so long as those judgments were rational; made in good faith and with due care; made in a manner that the director reasonably believed to be in the corporation’s best interests; and lacking in an actual conflict of interest. Any action that failed to fall within those boundaries would amount to malfeasance and would give rise to director or officer liability.

“But in the absence of outright fraud, it has never been thought that the fact that parties have initially resorted to the courts gives judges power to set aside later settlement agreements and impose others on the parties. And certainly when it is the Executive Branch of the Government that has made the settlement as representative of the public interest, only the grossest bad faith or malfeasance on its part could possibly support such a step. Either the Court is saying the Government was guilty of such misconduct—a charge totally without support in the record—or the Court has grossly overreached the permissible limit of judicial power.” J. Douglas, Cascade Natural Gas Corp. v. El Paso Natural Gas Co., 386 U.S. 129, 157 (1967).