Willis v. Bydalek was overruled by Ritchie v. Rupe and is no longer good law on the cause of action for minority shareholder oppression, but understanding the case and its important role in the judicial development of minority shareholder legal protections is still important.
The second significant oppression of minority shareholders case decided in Texas also came out of the First Court of Appeals: Willis v. Bydalek. In Willis v. Bydalek, Joseph Bydalek and Robert Fox formed RMF&JB Corporation to buy and run a bar in Huntsville, Texas. Bydalek owned 49%, and Fox owned 51% of the stock. Bydalek invested $31,000. Fox must also have invested initially, but this is not discussed in the appellate opinion. However, Fox's estate later infused at least an additional $59,000 in the company. Bydalek and his wife ran the day-to-day operations of the corporation, kept the books, and were the only shareholders to draw a salary. About the same time the club opened, Fox was killed in a car accident, and his sister Jeannine Willis took over his stock ownership as Administratrix of his estate. Over the next five months, relations soured; the club had difficulties with the renewal of its alcohol license, and the club lost money. Willis called a special shareholders' meeting, which Bydalek did not attend. It was disputed whether he was given notice. Willis elected two attorneys and herself to the board of directors. Sometime later, she took over management of the bar, changed the locks, and effectively barred Bydalek from the premises. Bydalek sued for minority shareholder oppression, and the jury found (1) that Bydalek was "wrongfully locked out," (2) that Willis acted "willfully and maliciously," (3) that the fair value of Bydalek's shares was $612.50, and (4) that Bydalek was entitled to $180,000 in punitive damages. The jury found that Willis had not committed conversion. The trial court entered a judgment for shareholder oppression, ordered a buy-out for $612.50, and awarded punitive damages in the amount of $30,000.
The court of appeals reversed the judgment, holding that the sole act of oppressive conduct found, "wrongful lock out," was no more than the firing of an at-will employee. The court of appeals did not hold that firing an at-will employee who is a minority shareholder can never, under any circumstances, constitute oppression, but that under the circumstances of that case the sole act of firing an at-will employee cannot constitute oppression of minority shareholders. The court emphasized that only one act of oppressive conduct was proven. Unlike the court in
Davis v. Sheerin, the Willis court did not supplement the jury's finding with other oppressive acts revealed by the record, and the court is careful to point out that most of these were disputed. The significant factors influencing the court were that the corporation always lost money (so that the minority shareholders were not denied an economic return on their investment), and that the at-will employment doctrine and the business judgment rule both militated against holding that the firing constituted oppression of minority shareholders.
|About the author: Houston Business Lawyer Eric Fryar is a published author and recognized expert in the field of shareholder oppression and the rights of small business owners. Eric has devoted his practice almost exclusively to the protection of shareholder rights over the last 25 years. Learn more||