Texas Supreme Court Takes Permissive View on Trade Secret Damages

One area in Texas commercial litigation that continues to evolve is the cause of action for theft of trade secrets.  State and federal statutes have recently been enacted making it easier for businesses to protect their trade secrets.  This is becoming increasingly important in the digital age when large amounts of information including protected trade secrets can be downloaded in seconds or minutes.  

The Texas Supreme Court seems to be following the trend.  In its recent June 2016 opinion of  Southwestern Energy Production Co. v. Hefland, Opinion No. 13-0986, the court decides whether to uphold a verdict for trade secret theft of over $30 million.  The underlying allegations involve the alleged misappropriation of data identifying highly productive oil and gas formations. Although, the court remands the case for a new trial on the grounds the plaintiff proved up some but not all of the damages, the court cites legal precedent stating, "A "flexible and imaginative" approach is applied to the calculation of damages in misappropriation-of-trade secrets.”

The court discusses multiple ways to measure damages for trade secret theft leaving the door open for Plaintiff's to be creative in developing their damages models.  However, in reading the opinion one gets the impression that the Plaintiff may have been a little too creative and would have been better off taking more of a rifle rather than a shotgun approach to proving up damages.  For example, the court finds that the Plaintiff's expert provided no basis for valuing certain elements of the damages claimed and overstated other damages calculations.  The result is that at the end of the day the court remands the case to the trial court for a new trial. 

Lessons learned from this case are that Texas courts may take a liberal view on damages in trade secret theft cases.  Even so, plaintiffs must meet the technical requirements in offering probative expert testimony to support damages.  Otherwise, plaintiffs may find themselves retrying their cases after years of hard work, or, even worse, being completely reversed on appeal.

Texas Shareholder Derivative Actions Made Easier

Just when it looked like all was lost for minority shareholders of closely held Texas corporations after the Texas Supreme Court eliminated shareholder oppression as a cause of action, along came the Court's decision of Sneed v. Webre, 465 S.W.3d 169 (Tex. 2015).  In this fascinating decision, the Court found that shareholders of TX closely held corporations do not have to first make a formal written demand upon the board of directors as a prerequisite to filing a derivative lawsuit. (A closely held corporation is one with fewer than 35 shareholders).

A derivative lawsuit is a proceeding instituted by shareholders on behalf of the corporation when the board of directors fails to initiate the lawsuit.  This typically arises when one or more interested directors or officers has allegedly breached fiduciary duties owed to the corporation. Naturally, in these situations, even those directors who have done nothing wrong may be reluctant to file a lawsuit on behalf of the corporation against one of their fellow board members or officers. Thus, if the directors fail to act, the law provides a mechanism for the shareholders to file a derivative action on behalf of the corporation.

Generally, before the shareholders of a corporation may file a derivative action, they must first make a formal written demand upon the board of directors to institute the lawsuit. Only after the directors refuse to do so or fail to timely respond to the demand may the shareholders institute the lawsuit. However, the Texas Supreme Court held that the shareholders of Texas closely held corporations do not have to meet this demand requirement.  They may simply file the lawsuit. This saves time and money for the complaining shareholders.

One other interesting fact in this case was that the shareholders of the parent corporation were instituting the derivative action on behalf of the parent corporation's wholly owned subsidiary.  The court held that they were equitable shareholders of the subsidiary and therefore had standing to also bring the action on behalf of it.

Durable Power of Attorney Creates Fiduciary Relationship

A recent court of appeals discussed the significance of the fiduciary relationship created when someone signs a power of attorney authorizing another to act as their agent.  (Jordan v. Lyles, 485 S.W.3d 785 (Tex. App. - Tyler 2015)).  In this case, Bud executed a durable power of attorney appointing his stepdaughter as his agent. Subsequently, Bud, with the help of his stepdaughter, completed some forms making his stepdaughter the sole beneficiary of Bud's bank and annuity accounts.  As a result, when Bud died these accounts vested in the stepdaughter and did not become part of Bud's probated estate.

After Bud's death, the stepdaughter withdrew the money from the accounts and liquidated the annuities.  Bud's heirs sued the stepdaughter for breach of fiduciary duty.  The court held that the power of attorney created a fiduciary relationship between Bud and his stepdaughter as a matter of law. Even in the case of a gift between parties with a fiduciary relationship, the law presumes the gift to be unfair and invalid.  The recipient of the gift must prove that the transaction was fair and reasonable.

The jury found that Bud's stepdaughter breached her fiduciary duty, under the circumstances of this case, and awarded damages to the heirs. The court of appeals upheld the jury award.

Fiduciary Duties Owed by Members of Texas Limited Liability Companies

The Texas Supreme Court has made it clear in a recent opinion that majority shareholders do not owe formal fiduciary duties to minority shareholders, even in closely held corporations. Cardiac Perfusion Services, Inc. v. Hughes, 436 S.W.3d 790 (Tex. 2014). However, a recent Texas appellate court held that managing members of a limited liability company (LLC) may owe a fiduciary duty to the non-managing member when the company agreement vests sole control of the company in the managing members.  Guevara v. Lackner, 447 S.W.3d 566 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 2014), reh'g overruled (Dec. 11, 2014).

The moral of the story is that in forming an LLC, careful attention should be paid to drafting the company agreement that governs the operation of the LLC.