In Skeels v. Suder, a departing shareholder of a law firm sued regarding the firm’s decision to redeem his shares for no consideration. No. 21-1014, 2023 Tex. LEXIS 578 (Tex. June 23, 2023). Partners of a law firm entered into a shareholder agreement that allowed certain individuals to take action. The resolution stated:
Notwithstanding
In Eho360 LLC v. Opalich, an employer sued its former employee for breaching fiduciary duties and other related claims regarding the former employee setting up a competing business. No. 3:21-CV-0724-B, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 45076 (N.D. Tex. March 17, 2023). The employee filed a motion for summary judgment, which the district court denied. The
Often in business divorce cases, one party will assert that the other party breached fiduciary duties. The defending party may then raise a statute of limitations defense, arguing that the claim is stale and should have been raised earlier. The statute of limitations in Texas for breach of fiduciary duty is four years. The party
In Trench Tech Int’l, Inc. v. Tech Con Trenching, Inc., the son of an owner of a company, who was an employee, downloaded design plans and other information and went to another company who used that information. No. 4:19-cv-00201-O, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 100280 (N.D. Tex. June 6, 2022). The company and the company
In In re Mijares, a plaintiff claimed that a defendant defrauded him and breached fiduciary duties owed to him by charging improper, excessive, and unauthorized expenses to their medical practice, causing the plaintiff’s distributions from the practice to be reduced during the roughly six years that they practiced medicine together. Case No. 19-33121-hdh7, Adv.
In Power v. Power, one brother sued the other brother for breach of fiduciary duty related to their partnership in real estate investing. No. 05-19-01557-CV, 2022 Tex. App. LEXIS 2926 (Tex. App.—Dallas May 3, 2022, no pet. history). The trial court found for the plaintiff, and the defendant appealed.
Continue Reading Partner Had Capacity To Sue Other Partner For Breach Of Fiduciary Duty
In In re Estate of Poe, shortly before his death, Dick, who was the sole director of Poe Management, Inc. (PMI), authorized the corporation to issue new shares that he bought for $3.2 million. No. 20-0178, 2022 Tex. LEXIS 544 (Tex. June 17, 2022). This made Dick the majority owner of PMI, which was the general partner of several Poe-owned businesses.
Continue Reading Texas Supreme Court Holds That A Director Of A Corporation Cannot Hold An Informal Fiduciary Duty To A Stockholder
FORT WORTH, TX – Winstead PC, a leading national law firm, today announced that David Fowler Johnson, Managing Shareholder of the firm’s Fort Worth office and the lead writer for the Texas Fiduciary Litigator blog, was awarded the JDSupra Readers’ Choice Award for Top Author in Wealth Management.
This is the fourth year
On Thursday, February 11, Winstead Shareholder David F. Johnson presents his 2020-2021 Fiduciary Litigation Update at the UT Law CLE 18th Annual Changes and Trends Affecting Special Needs Trusts. David’s presentation will cover recent statutory changes and case law updates.
Date: Thursday, February 11, 2022 at 9:30 a.m.
CLE Credit: 0.75 hr
Location: AT&T Conference
In R.P. Small Corp. v. Land Dep’t, Inc., the plaintiff sued the defendant for breaching fiduciary duties due to a confidential relationship regarding oil and gas development. No. H-20-14902021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 133695 (S. D. Tex. July 19, 2021). The plaintiff alleged that the defendant took advantage of his relationship, lied about his qualifications and experience, and overbilled and had self-dealing transactions. The defendant filed a motion to dismiss based on the economic loss rule, arguing that the plaintiff’s claims all arose from oral and written contracts. The federal district court denied the motion to dismiss. The court first discussed the economic loss rule:
Under Texas law, the “economic loss rule generally precludes recovery in tort for economic losses resulting from a party’s failure to perform a contract when the harm consists only of the economic loss of a contractual expectancy.” In determining if the economic loss rule applies, Texas courts look to both the “source of the alleged duty and the nature of the claimed injury.” “[A] party may elect a recovery in tort if the duty breached stands independent from the contractual undertaking, and the alleged damages are not solely the result of a bargained-for contractual benefit.” This is because “‘[t]ort obligations are in general obligations that are imposed by law—apart from and independent of promises made and therefore apart from the manifested intention of the parties—to avoid injury to others.’”