Sneed v. Webre
| Decision Date | 29 May 2015 |
| Docket Number | No. 12–0045,12–0045 |
| Citation | 465 S.W.3d 169 |
| Parties | Robert Wayne Sneed, James H. Tichenor, Fred Wolgel, James F. O'Donnell, Texas United Corporation, and United Salt Corporation, Petitioners, v. Lloyd P. Webre, Jr., Individually and Derivatively on Behalf of Texas United Corporation and United Salt Corporation, Respondents |
| Court | Texas Supreme Court |
Karen Appel Oshman, Neal S. Manne, Susman Godfrey L.L.P., Houston, for Petitioner James F. O'Donnell.
Robin C. Gibbs, Sydney Gibbs Ballesteros, Gibbs & Bruns, L.L.P., Houston, for Petitioner Robert Wayne Sneed.
Kevin D. Jewell, Ralph A. Midkiff, Chamberlain Hrdlicka White Williams & Aughtry, Houston, for Petitioners Texas United Corporation and United Salt Corporation.
Allison Diane Bonner, Ben A. Baring Jr., Paul J. McConnell III, De Lange Hudspeth McConnell & Tibbets LLP, Houston, for Petitioner James H. Tichenor.
Charles W. Schwartz, Skadden Arps Slate Meagher & Flom LLP, Houston, for Petitioner Fred Wolgel.
Christopher Paul Hanslik, BoyarMiller, David W. Holman (deceased), The Holman Law Firm PC, Dwayne Richard Day, Dwayne R. Day, P.C., Jennifer Lynn Hebert, BoyarMiller, Marc S. Tabolsky, Yetter Coleman, LLP, Michael Gary Orlando, Orlando & Braun, LLP, Reagan W. Simpson, Yetter Coleman LLP, Houston, for Respondent Lloyd P. Webre, Jr., individually and derivatively on behalf of Texas United Corporation and United Salt Corporation.
The business judgment rule in Texas generally protects corporate officers and directors, who owe fiduciary duties to the corporation, from liability for acts that are within the honest exercise of their business judgment and discretion. See Cates v. Sparkman, 73 Tex. 619, 11 S.W. 846, 848–49 (1889). This case involves application of the business judgment rule to a shareholder derivative lawsuit brought on behalf of a closely held corporation. A shareholder of a closely held parent corporation asserted a derivative lawsuit on behalf of the parent corporation's wholly owned subsidiary against one of the subsidiary's directors and several of the subsidiary's officers, managers, and employees for fraud and breach of fiduciary duties. The trial court concluded that the shareholder did not have standing to bring the derivative lawsuit and granted the defendants' pleas to the jurisdiction and motions to dismiss. The court of appeals reversed and held that the shareholder had double-derivative standing to sue, and that the business judgment rule did not impose a jurisdictional barrier that the shareholder had to overcome to bring a derivative lawsuit on behalf of a closely held corporation. 358 S.W.3d 322, 326 (Tex.App.–Houston [1st Dist.] 2011). The petitioners raise three issues: (1) what role does the business judgment rule play when a shareholder brings a derivative lawsuit on behalf of a closely held corporation; (2) whether a shareholder plaintiff must establish derivative standing by pleading and proving jurisdictional facts to overcome the board of directors' business judgment not to pursue the closely held corporation's cause of action; and (3) whether Texas recognizes the concept of double-derivative standing, which enables a shareholder of a parent corporation to bring a derivative lawsuit on behalf of a wholly owned subsidiary. We affirm the court of appeals' judgment.
This case demonstrates the close ties within closely held corporations. In 1926, C.J. Webre started a family business mining salt from underground salt caverns in Hockley, Texas. The family business grew and became profitable. Over time, the family business evolved into multiple corporations and companies, wholly owned subsidiaries, and affiliates that engaged in brine production and salt manufacturing. Texas Brine Company, LLC and other related entities drilled wells into salt caverns to produce and recover brine. The brine producing line of companies also used the underground caverns by injecting gas or liquid hydrocarbons for storage. Texas United Corporation and its wholly owned subsidiary, United Salt Corporation, engaged in the business of manufacturing salt products for sale to retail and business customers.
Ownership of the entities comprising the family business has remained within the Webre family. During the relevant time in this case, four siblings—Lloyd P. Webre, Jr., Camille Webre Tichenor, Mary Iris Webre, and Roberta Webre Rude (collectively the Webre siblings)—each owned roughly 24% of the Class A voting stock in Texas United.1 In addition, Camille Webre Tichenor's husband, James Tichenor, owned 2.4% of Texas United stock, and the Webre siblings' uncle, Arnold Webre, owned approximately 1.34%. Each Texas United shareholder served on the Texas United board of directors along with Robert Duboise, who formerly served as president of Texas United.
Robert Sneed served as the president and CEO of Texas United. Sneed also served as the secretary and treasurer of Texas Brine. In addition to being a shareholder and board member, James Tichenor served as Texas United's senior vice president. Tichenor also served as the vice president of Texas Brine. Fred Wolgel served as Texas United's vice president and general counsel. Wolgel also served as the vice president and general counsel of Texas Brine.
The four Webre siblings also served on the board of directors of Texas United's wholly owned subsidiary, United Salt, along with Iris P. Webre (their mother), Arnold Webre (their uncle), their brother-in-law James Tichenor (Camille Webre Tichenor's husband), and Robert Duboise. James O'Donnell served as the president and CEO of United Salt.2 Fred Wolgel served as United Salt's general counsel. Robert Sneed served as United Salt's secretary and treasurer during the relevant time in this case.
Although each of the entities comprising the family business was closely held, the Webre family operated them as if they were larger, publicly traded entities. The entities were managed in full observation of all corporate formalities, there were regular shareholder and board of director meetings, and the entities kept written records of the actions and resolutions taken at those meetings. The family business also employed other staff, employees, and officers to help run the various entities.
The dispute in this case arose from a United Salt business deal to acquire a salt mining and storage facility in Saltville, Virginia (the Saltville Acquisition). Beginning in 2006, United Salt's president, James O'Donnell, presented the Saltville Acquisition as a new business opportunity to the board of directors. The acquired land and facilities would be used to recover salt for sale, and a plan was formed to expand the Saltville facilities to drill additional wells to extract salt from the brine and to eventually use the underground caverns created by the brining process for gas storage. Due to concerns over the potential liabilities of operating a gas storage facility, Texas Brine was to create a new subsidiary to acquire the gas storage operations immediately after the Saltville Acquisition. Thus, according to the plan, the newly formed subsidiary, Texas Brine Company Saltville, LLC, would acquire the gas storage operations, as well as the associated liabilities, from United Salt at a cost of approximately $3,451,500.
Over the course of several years, corporate records reflect that the United Salt board of directors took numerous votes and actions with respect to conducting, affirming, and ratifying the Saltville Acquisition. Every vote was passed by a majority of the United Salt board of directors. Eventually, the United Salt board became aware that the cost of the Saltville Acquisition was exceeding initial projections, and the board commissioned investigations into the cost overruns to inquire about any possible wrongdoing. The investigations included the hiring of an independent accounting firm to conduct an audit of the Saltville Acquisition, but the accounting firm did not find any fraud or self-dealing in the payment of expenditures or costs. Financial projections for the Saltville Acquisition, which included projected cost overruns, forecasted that the deal would generate a net profit of $46 million over the first ten years. Each of the four Webre siblings, as shareholders of United Salt's parent corporation, Texas United, were projected to receive approximately $10 million in profit from the deal over the same ten-year period.
One United Salt director, Lloyd P. Webre, Jr. (Webre), who was also a Texas United director and shareholder, was not convinced about the profitability of the Saltville Acquisition. He dissented every time the United Salt board took a vote regarding the deal. He even visited the Saltville facility to question its management about his concerns. Time and again, he voiced his concerns at the United Salt director meetings to his family and the other directors, and time and again, a majority of the board of directors voted to proceed with the Saltville Acquisition.
After the Saltville Acquisition was completed, Webre sued a director and several of the officers and managerial employees of United Salt and other affiliated entities in his individual capacity and derivatively on behalf of United Salt and Texas United. Webre's lawsuit was based on his status as a shareholder in Texas United. Specifically, Webre sued Robert Sneed, James Tichenor, Fred Wolgel, and James O'Donnell (collectively, the individual defendants) as the officers and managers of United Salt and the other entities affiliated with Texas United.3 Webre's original petition alleged that the individual defendants' initial presentation to the Texas United board of directors about the Saltville Acquisition never mentioned the possibility of operating a gas storage facility at the site. Webre alleged that in later presentations to United Salt's board of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Pike v. Tex. EMC Mgmt., LLC
...claims in a derivative capacity in certain circumstances. E.g. , TEX. BUS. ORGS. CODE §§ 152.002, 152.210 –.211, 153.401–.413; see Sneed , 465 S.W.3d at 188. In addition, an organization may transfer its claim to a stakeholder, or vice versa. Walker cites Wingate and its progeny to support ......
-
Angel v. Tauch (In re Chiron Equities, LLC)
...Court of Texas in Wingate v. Hajdik, 795 S.W.2d 717, 719 (Tex.1990), superseded by statute on other grounds as stated in Sneed v. Webre, 465 S.W.3d 169 (Tex.2015). Stating that “a corporate stockholder cannot recover damages personally for a wrong done solely to the corporation, even though......
-
In re Interest of H.S.
...1997) (findings of fact and legal conclusions are neither necessary nor proper in a summary-judgment proceeding).18 Sneed v. Webre , 465 S.W.3d 169, 179 (Tex. 2015) (standing is "a constitutional prerequisite to maintaining suit").19 Perry v. Del Rio , 66 S.W.3d 239, 257 (Tex. 2001).20 Ante......
-
Infinity Emergency Mgmt. Grp., LLC v. Neighbors Health Sys., Inc. (In re Neighbors Legacy Holdings, Inc.)
...derivative standing itself, Texas's pre-suit demand requirement is not based on historical or equitable practices. See Sneed v. Webre , 465 S.W.3d 169, 184 (Tex. 2015) (quoting In re Schmitz , 285 S.W.3d 451, 455 (Tex. 2009) ) ("Unlike Texas law for a century before, the new provision requi......
-
Federal Court Dismissed Some But Not All Claims Against Individuals And Entities Arising Out Of Operation Of A Limited Partnership
...or deceptively in the withholding of information. Chapman, 2018 Tex. App. LEXIS 7132, 2018 WL 4139001, at *15 (citing Sneed v. Webre, 465 S.W.3d 169, 178 (Tex. 2015)). Dunn alleges not only that Chappelle, Ellis, and Turner withheld information from the board, but further suggests they inte......
-
Derivative Lawsuits by Private Company Minority Owners: Procedures for Protecting the Company from Insider Misconduct
...that they should not be second guessed in a lawsuit every time they make a business decision for the company. See, e.g., Sneed v. Webre, 465 S.W.3d 169, 182 (Tex. 2015). A shareholder who fails to jump through the procedural hoops that are set out in the statute will not be allowed to pursu......
-
Chapter 2-8 Derivate Shareholder Suits
...but see Tex. Bus. Orgs. Code Ann. § 21.563(b) (sections 21.552-21.560 do not apply to a closely held corporation); Sneed v. Webre, 465 S.W.3d 169 (Tex. 2015) (recognizing double-derivative standing).[180] Tex. Bus. Orgs. Code Ann. § 21.553(a); In re Schmitz, 285 S.W.3d 451, 458 (Tex. 2009) ......