Pedro v. Pedro
1992 Minn. App. LEXIS 847, 1992 WL 189082, 489 N.W.2d 798 (1992)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
In a closely held corporation, majority shareholders who breach their fiduciary duty by oppressively firing a minority shareholder to trigger a buyout cannot benefit from their wrongful conduct; a court may award damages equal to the difference between the stock's fair market value and a lower, contractually-set buyout price. A shareholder's reasonable expectation of lifetime employment, based on the parties' conduct and history, can also support a separate award for lost wages.
Facts:
- Three brothers, Alfred, Carl, and Eugene Pedro, each owned a one-third interest in their family corporation, The Pedro Companies (TPC).
- All three brothers had worked at TPC for most of their adult lives, with Alfred having been employed for 45 years.
- In 1979, the brothers executed a Stock Retirement Agreement (SRA) that valued shares for a buyout at 75% of net book value.
- Alfred Pedro discovered a large, unexplained discrepancy in the company's financial records, totaling approximately $270,000.
- When Alfred insisted on an independent investigation into the discrepancy, his brothers, Carl and Eugene, threatened to fire him if he did not drop the issue.
- After Alfred persisted, Carl and Eugene placed him on mandatory leave, hired private investigators to follow him, and ultimately terminated his employment in December 1987.
- After firing Alfred, Carl and Eugene informed company employees that Alfred had suffered a nervous breakdown.
Procedural Posture:
- Alfred Pedro filed an action in Minnesota trial court seeking the dissolution of The Pedro Companies.
- Carl Pedro, Eugene Pedro, and The Pedro Companies moved that the action proceed as a statutory buyout of Alfred's shares.
- A jury rendered a verdict awarding damages to Alfred.
- On the first appeal, the Minnesota Court of Appeals (in Pedro I) held the jury verdict was merely advisory and remanded the case to the trial court to make its own independent findings.
- On remand, the trial court found for Alfred, awarding him the SRA value for his shares, plus additional damages for breach of fiduciary duty and wrongful termination of a lifetime employment contract.
- Carl Pedro, Eugene Pedro, and The Pedro Companies (appellants) appealed the trial court's judgment to the Minnesota Court of Appeals.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Do majority shareholders in a closely held corporation breach their fiduciary duty by firing a minority shareholder for investigating financial discrepancies, thereby forcing a buyout at a contractually agreed price that is less than fair market value?
Opinions:
Majority - Norton, Judge.
Yes. Majority shareholders breach their fiduciary duty to act openly, honestly, and fairly when they engage in oppressive conduct to force out a minority shareholder. Shareholders in a closely held corporation owe one another a fiduciary duty analogous to that of partners, requiring the highest standards of integrity and good faith. The court found that Carl and Eugene did not act honestly or fairly by firing Alfred for demanding an investigation into a legitimate financial concern, interfering with his duties, fabricating accusations, and spreading rumors about his mental health. A breach of this duty does not require that the corporation's value be diminished; oppressive conduct like forcing a shareholder's resignation is sufficient. Because the breach of fiduciary duty forced the buyout, the proper measure of damages is the difference between the fair market value of Alfred's shares and the lower price mandated by the SRA, as the appellants cannot be allowed to benefit from their wrongful actions. The court also affirmed that based on the unique facts—including Alfred's 45 years of service and the family history of lifetime employment—he had a reasonable expectation of continued employment, making his termination wrongful and entitling him to separate damages for lost future wages.
Analysis:
This case reinforces the principle that the relationship between shareholders in a closely held corporation is fundamentally fiduciary, imposing duties that transcend formal corporate roles and written agreements. The decision establishes that a contractual buyout provision, like the SRA, cannot be used as a shield to facilitate shareholder oppression. By awarding damages in excess of the contract price, the court signals that remedies for breach of fiduciary duty can include compensating the oppressed shareholder for the full, fair value of their interest, preventing the wrongdoers from profiting. This strengthens the position of minority shareholders by affirming that their 'reasonable expectations,' including continued employment, are protected interests a court can and will enforce with monetary damages.
