Before the Court en banc. Opinion by Hardesty.
In this petition for a writ of mandamus, the Nevada Supreme Court considered whether a district court may appoint an unwilling director trustee of a dissolved corporation to defend post-dissolution claims against the corporation that arose after the conclusion of the winding-up process. The Court first determined that the continued legal existence of a corporation for the purpose of adjudicating a post-dissolution claim against it is separate from the obligations of its directors trustees to wind up the corporate affairs. With that premise in mind, the Court examined Nevada’s statutory corporate dissolution scheme and concluded that, while claimants may bring post-dissolution claims, directors trustees have no duty to defend against those claims once the directors trustees have completed winding up the affairs of the corporation. In a footnote, the Court recognized the difficulty presented by the apparent conflict between this decision and Beazer Homes Nevada, Inc. v. Dist. Ct., 120 Nev. 575, 584, 97 P.3d 1132, 1138 (2004), which allowed post-dissolution claims to be brought against corporations if the claim was brought within the relevant statute of limitations or statute of repose. The Court stated that the conflict must be resolved by the legislature and was not a proper subject for determination by the courts. Petition granted. (Seth T. Floyd, Associate in the Las Vegas office of McDonald Carano Wilson).
