The Texas Supreme Court will be down to eight justices again at the end of this month, as Justice Dale Wainwright announced his resignation from the court last week.  Justice Wainwright served on the court for almost a decade.  He authored a number of important opinions during that time, including Texas Department of Parks and Wildlife v. Miranda and Severance v. Patterson.  I had the honor of serving as his law clerk during the 2009-10 term, where I was able to see the strength of his convictions and his passion for the law first-hand.  We wish him well in his future endeavors.

The Texas Supreme Court has granted the petition for review in an inverse-condemnation case from the Dallas Court of Appeals.  In El Dorado Land Co., L.P. v. City of McKinney, the court of appeals affirmed the trial court’s determination that the plaintiff had failed to plead a compensable interest in a deed restriction for a piece of real property.  El Dorado had sold the property to the city on the condition that it only be used for a community park, but ten years later the city built a library on it instead.  According to the court of appeals, El Dorado could not sue for condemnation because it did not have a vested interest in the property at the time of the taking, despite a contractual option to repurchase the property if the city ever breached the deed restriction.  That was so, the court of appeals held, because “a claim for inverse condemnation under article I, section 17 of the Texas Constitution has traditionally involved interests in real property and not the alleged taking of property interests created under contract.”  The Supreme Court will now have the opportunity to determine whether a contractual option to purchase is a sufficient interest in property to support a takings claim.  The case is set for oral argument on January 9, 2012.

You can find the parties’ briefs here.

As a few people have already discovered, @600Commerce is now on Twitter.  With a little luck, it should be set up to send out an automatic tweet every time a new post goes up here on the blog.  If you would like to follow that feed, you can subscribe through the new link in the right hand column, or just drop on by the Twitter website at the link in this post.

The court affirmed the trial court’s summary judgment dismissing a plaintiff’s claims against his former employer for breach of the employment contract. Twin Lakes Golf Course hired Holloway to move from Illinois and serve as its head pro for three years. After further negotiations in July 2008, Twin Lakes and Holloway orally agreed to an employment term lasting one year with an agreement to extend for another three years based on his performance. Holloway started working on August 5, 2008, and soon after Twin Lakes presented a written contract, dated July 23, containing the terms of the agreement. Holloway signed the document but Twin Lakes never did. Holloway was fired eight weeks later and he sued for breach of contract and fraudulent inducement. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Twin Lakes.

On appeal, the court determined that the agreement was not enforceable because, as an agreement that could not be performed within one year, it fell within the statute of frauds. The court noted that the contract was negotiated in July 2008 and the document that Holloway signed was dated July 23. Thus, the agreement was made in July 2008 and performance was to end in August 2009 – over one year. Additionally, Holloway’s employment was to last from August 5, 2008 to August 5, 2009 – one year and one day. The court also held that Holloway’s affidavit testimony stating that the agreement could be performed within one year was conclusory. Finally, his partial performance did not remove the agreement from the statute of frauds because he was compensated. Thus, the agreement was unenforceable and Holloway’s claims failed as a matter of law.

Holloway v. Dekkers and Twin Lakes Golf Course, Inc., 05-10-01132-CV

Having won a default judgment over Art and Frame Direct/Timeless Industries Georgia (“A&F Direct”), Dallas Market sought to execute that judgment by filing a post-judgment writ of garnishment against Wachovia, A&F Direct’s bank.  Wachovia sought to comply, identifying an account they believed to be held by A&F Direct as well as three other accounts held by Art & Frame (a separate entity).  Dallas Market claimed entitlement to the funds in the Art &  Frame account based on a “Zero Balance Agreement,” which allowed Wachovia to transfer funds from one of the Art & Frame accounts to the A&F Direct account.   The trial court eventually granted Dallas Market’s summary judgment motion, permitting them to obtain the funds held in the Art & Frame account, even though Art & Frame was not the judgment debtor.

On appeal, the Court delved into the factual record to determine the nature of the relationship between the two accounts.    Among other things, the Court examined the scope of the Zero Balance Agreement, as well as testimony about how transfers under the agreement actually worked in practice.  Ultimately, however, the Court concluded that Dallas Market could not establish that A&F Direct was the true owner of the funds based on the Zero Balance Agreement or any other facts.  In sum, the Court concluded that Dallas Market did not meet its burden on summary judgment, and proceeded to reverse and remand the trial court’s decision.

Art and Frame Direct v. Dallas Market, No. 05-01471-CV

The court of appeals has issued a short memorandum opinion in a restricted appeal following the trial court’s entry of a default judgment.  Tejas Asset Holdings filed suit against a predecessor company of JPMorgan Chase, seeking a declaration that Chase’s deed of trust lien was invalid because it allegedly did not have Tejas’ original promissory note.  Tejas attempted to serve Chase’s registered agent by certified mail, but neither the citation nor the proof of service were actually included in the clerk’s record, and the certified mail receipt was not sufficient to demonstrate service had actually occurred.  Since the record did not show that any proper return of service was on file with the clerk at least ten days before the default judgment was entered, the court reversed the default and remanded the case for further proceedings.

JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. v. Tejas Asset Holdings, L.L.C., No. 05-11-00962

In February 2008, Booklab sued Konica over the faulty printer it had purchased from Konica.  Sixteen months after the suit began, Konica filed a “no evidence” summary judgment motion on Booklab’s damages claim.  Booklab objected, contending that the motion was improper because it had not had enough time for discovery.  The trial court granted Konica’s motion and Booklab appealed.

The main issue on appeal was whether Booklab’s time for discovery had been adequate.  Booklab argued that its case was “complex”–thus requiring an extended discovery period.  It also asserted that the trial court’s established discovery period had not expired by the time Konica had filed its motion.  The court of appeals rejected both of these arguments.  Because determining whether adequate time for discovery is so fact specific, it held that “the rules do not require that the discovery period applicable to the case have ended before a no-evidence summary judgment may be granted.”  It also rejected Booklab’s claim that the case was complex, finding that Booklab’s damages claim required only that it prove a loss of business opportunities with its own clients.  It noted that Booklab could not explain why discovery of Konica’s employees and executives was necessary to its claim.

Booklab Inc. v. Konica Minolta Business Solutions, Inc., No. 05-10-00095

For further analysis of ARGO and the related shareholder oppression cases recently issued by the Dallas Court of Appeals, please see our “hot topic” section on shareholder oppression.

Another installment in the court’s recent spate of shareholder oppression opinions finds the court reversing a judgment in favor of the minority shareholder. Martin and Shagrithaya started a software company named ARGO in 1980 with $1000. Martin and Shagrithaya retained 53% and 47% interests in ARGO respectively and were the sole board members, but Martin had the right to appoint a tiebreaker. There was no express agreement as to employment or compensation, which was determined on a year to year basis. For 25 years, they received equal compensation. By 2008, ARGO was valued at $152 million.

In the early 2000s, tensions arose as Martin became unhappy with what he saw as Shagrithaya’s refusal to take on executive responsibilities. In 2006, Martin unilaterally cut Shagrithaya’s annual compensation from $1 million to $300,000. Soon after, Martin and ARGO’s management began to isolate Shagrithaya. Around this time, the IRS performed an audit of ARGO and found assess it over $7 million in retained earnings tax. ARGO contested this assessment and won. Shagrithaya was not informed of the assessment or contest.

After an independent appraisal of ARGO, Martin offered Shagrithaya $66 million for his shares, representing their values less a 35% minority holder discount. Shagrithaya refused, arguing that there should be no discount because ARGO is not a third-party. Shagrithaya demanded an audit of ARGO and proposed an alternative plan to restore his previous salary, explore a sale of ARGO, and issue an $85 million dividend. ARGO allowed the audit, which uncovered that Martin had misappropriated ARGO funds to his personal use. Martin reimbursed ARGO the amount appropriated plus some amount more. In a final board meeting in December 2008, Martin appointed ARGO president Engebos as the third board member. They voted in favor of Martin’s plans regarding compensation, executive positions, and a$25 million dividend.

After losing the vote on all three issues, Shagrithaya resigned and filed a suit for shareholder oppression and other torts. At trial, Shagrithaya advanced the theory that Martin schemed to withhold compensation and dividends to ARGO so that ARGO could purchase Shagrithaya’s shares at a minority discount and force Shagrithaya out of the company. The jury found in Shagrithaya’s favor, and the trial court entered a judgment awarding Shagrithaya back compensation and ordering ARGO to issue an $85 million dividend.

On appeal, Martin and ARGO challenged the legal and factual sufficiency of the evidence supporting the jury’s finding of suppression. The court reviewed eleven of Martin and AGRO’s actions that the jury found to be oppressive to determine whether they (1) substantially defeated Shagrithaya’s objectively reasonable expectations central to his decision to join the venture or (2) constituted “burdensome, harsh, or wrongful conduct; a lack of probity and fair dealing in the company’s affairs to the prejudice of [Shagrithaya]; or a visible departure from the standards of fair dealing and a violation of fair play.”

ACTS 1 and 7: Martin reduced Shagrithaya’s annual compensation by 70 percent and forced him to report to ARGO’s president, Engebos, without the approval of the Board of Directors or shareholders. The court held that it was not reasonable for Shagrithaya to expect to maintain a level of compensation equal to Martin’s indefinitely without an employment contract. Additionally, the absence of board approval was later corrected at the December 2008 board meeting and the board retroactively cured the discrepancy in Shagrithaya’s actual past compensation. Though Shagrithaya voted against the reduction, the court noted that the inability to control board decisions is inherent in the position of a minority shareholder, citing Patton v. Nicholas. Finally, it did not prejudice Shagrithaya’s rights as a board member because these issues were purely employment matters.

ACT 2: ARGO maintained Martin’s compensation at $1 million without board approval. Shagrithaya argued that this constituted a de facto dividend to Martin, but the court found no evidence of such. And again, the boards retroactively approved and cured this action.

ACTS 3-4: Martin schemed to buy out Shagrithaya retaining earnings and refusing to pay dividends. The court held that these actions alone did not constitute oppression. The dividend were equally suppressed for Martin, and some dividends were issued and shared accordingly with Shagrithaya. Further, there was no evidence that these actions reduced Shagrithaya’s share value. The court noted that Shagrithaya had no specific expectation of dividends, and shareholders have not general expectation of dividends.

ACTS 5 and 11: Martin did not disclose the IRS assessment or ARGO’s engagement of a law firm to challenge it. The court held that because the assessment was reversed, there was no harm to Shagrithaya’s interests, and the legal representation benefited ARGO by securing the reversal.

ACT 6: Martin offered Shagrithaya $66 million for his shares at a minority discount and forced him to accept by withholding dividends. The court held that because Shagrithaya was never forced to relinquish ownership – his intent to sell was voluntary – the fair market value of his minority shares, including the discount, was the proper valuation. Using the shares’ enterprise value in the sale would only be required if ARGO or Martin were forced to purchase them. Further, the mere purchase offer, without other financial pressure, was not oppressive.

ACTS 8-10: Martin’s misappropriation of ARGO assets for his personal use. Martin’s repayment remedied any harm to Shagrithaya prior to trial.

The jury also found for Shagrithaya on his claims for fraud, breach of implied agreement, and breach of fiduciary duty. The fraud claim related to Martin’s failure to disclose his buyout scheme. The court held that his failure to disclose did not harm Shagrithaya because Shagrithaya could not force a dividend and possible sale of shares at that time were to speculative. Shagrithaya’s alleged Martin breached an implied agreement to continue their practice of equal compensation. The court held that this practice was not sufficient to establish an agreement, and in any case the terms of any agreement were too indefinite. Finally, Martin’s retaining of earnings, misuse of funds, and sale of ARGO’s assets did not cause Shagrithaya harm even if it breached his fiduciary duties.

ARGO Data Resource Corporation and Max Martin v. Balkrishna Shagrithaya, 05-10-00690-CV