Lexplug logoLexplug

Rash v. J v. Intermediate, Ltd.

Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
498 F.3d 1201 (2007)
ELI5:

Rule of Law:

An employee acting as an agent owes a formal fiduciary duty to their employer, which includes the absolute duty to fully disclose any personal financial interest in transactions affecting the employer's business. Failure to disclose such an interest, such as owning a company that subcontracts with the employer, constitutes a breach of this duty as a matter of law.


Facts:

  • J.V. Industrial Companies, Ltd. (JVIC) hired W. Clayton Rash to start and manage its Tulsa division under a two-year employment contract requiring him to devote his 'full work time and efforts' to JVIC.
  • After the written contract expired in 2001, Rash continued to manage the Tulsa division without a new written agreement.
  • Beginning in 2001, while still employed by JVIC, Rash secretly owned and operated a scaffolding business named Total Industrial Plant Services, Inc. (TIPS).
  • As manager of JVIC-Tulsa, Rash was responsible for soliciting bids and selecting subcontractors for projects.
  • Rash, acting on behalf of JVIC-Tulsa, frequently selected his own company, TIPS, as a subcontractor.
  • Between 2001 and 2004, JVIC paid over $1 million to TIPS for subcontracting work approved by Rash.
  • During this period, JVIC-Tulsa never used the services of JVIC's own internal scaffolding division.
  • Rash never disclosed his ownership interest in TIPS to anyone at JVIC before resigning in July 2004.

Procedural Posture:

  • W. Clayton Rash sued his former employer, JVIC, in federal district court for breach of contract and fraud, alleging unpaid bonuses.
  • JVIC asserted counterclaims against Rash, including breach of fiduciary duty and breach of the duty of loyalty.
  • JVIC moved for summary judgment, arguing the statute of frauds barred Rash's contract claims for the period after his written contract expired; the district court denied the motion.
  • At the close of evidence at trial, the district court granted Rash's motion for judgment as a matter of law, dismissing JVIC's breach of fiduciary duty counterclaim.
  • The jury returned a verdict awarding Rash $444,933 for his contract claim and awarding JVIC $71,500 for its breach of duty of loyalty counterclaim.
  • The district court denied all of JVIC's post-trial motions, including motions for a new trial and for the equitable remedy of fee forfeiture.
  • JVIC, as appellant, appealed the district court's rulings to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.

Locked

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Does an employee-agent who manages a division of his employer's company breach his fiduciary duty by secretly owning a subcontracting company and awarding his employer's business to that company without disclosure?


Opinions:

Majority - Tymkovich, Circuit Judge

Yes. An employee-agent who manages a division of his employer's company breaches his fiduciary duty by secretly owning a subcontracting company and awarding his employer's business to that company without disclosure. Under Texas law, the agent-principal relationship is a formal fiduciary relationship that imposes a duty on the agent to act solely for the principal's benefit. This duty includes a general duty of full disclosure regarding all matters affecting the principal's interests, particularly transactions where the agent has a personal financial stake. Rash's extensive management authority over the Tulsa division established him as JVIC's agent, and his failure to disclose his ownership of TIPS while contracting with it on JVIC's behalf was a clear violation of his fiduciary duty as a matter of law.



Analysis:

This decision reinforces the strictness of an agent's fiduciary duty of disclosure under Texas law, distinguishing the formal duty arising from an agency relationship from informal duties based on pre-existing trust. The case establishes a strong precedent that an employee with significant management authority cannot engage in self-dealing with their employer, even if they argue the self-dealing is in a business area tangential to their primary responsibilities. The ruling underscores that disclosure is the paramount obligation; the simple act of informing the principal could have averted the breach, highlighting that the core of the violation is the secrecy and conflict of interest.

G

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Rash v. J v. Intermediate, Ltd. (2007)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"