Texas Supreme Court Restricts "Shareholder Oppression" Cause of Action


On June 20, 2014, the Texas Supreme Court delivered its written opinion in Ritchie v. Rupe, No. 11-0447, holding (1) Texas does not recognize a common-law cause of action for minority “shareholder oppression” and (2) the appointment of a rehabilitative receiver is the only remedy for oppressive actions by corporate management.

Ann Caldwell Rupe, a minority shareholder in a closely-held corporation, brought suit against the controlling shareholders, asserting claims for breach of fiduciary duty and oppressive conduct, and seeking the appointment of a receiver to liquidate the corporation. At trial, the jury found in Ms. Rupe’s favor on essentially all of her claims, and found the fair value of Ms. Rupe’s stock to be $7.3 million. The trial court found that the alleged oppressive conduct was likely to continue and that the most equitable remedy was to require the corporation to redeem Ms. Rupe’s shares. The court of appeals affirmed the finding of oppressive conduct, but concluded the trial court had erred by instructing the jury not to discount the value of Ms. Rupe’s shares for the lack of marketability and control.

The Supreme Court reversed and remanded. The Supreme Court’s opinion holds that Tex. Bus. Orgs. Code 11.404 creates a single cause of action with a single remedy: an action for appointment of a rehabilitative receiver. In so holding, the Court curtails a minority shareholder’s ability to use the threat of a court-ordered buyout to extract unwarranted value from majority shareholders. Without a common-law cause of action, shareholders are limited to the confines of Tex. Bus. Orgs. Code 11.404(a)(1). While the statute allows appointment of a receiver in response to “oppressive” conduct, the Court also held “oppressive” in this context means instances in which the majority abuses their authority with the intent to harm the interests of one or more shareholders in a manner that does not comport with the honest exercise of their business judgment. This is a far more restrictive definition than applied by previous court of appeals decisions.

For additional information, please contact Gardere Trial Partner Todd A. Murray ( or 214.999.4862).

The publications contained in this site do not constitute legal advice. Legal advice can only be given with knowledge of the client's specific facts. By putting these publications on our website we do not intend to create a lawyer-client relationship with the user. Materials may not reflect the most current legal developments, verdicts or settlements. This information should in no way be taken as an indication of future results.

Search Tips:

You may use the wildcard symbol (*) as a root expander.  A search for "anti*" will find not only "anti", but also "anti-trust", "antique", etc.

Entering two terms together in a search field will behave as though an "OR" is being used.  For example, entering "Antique Motorcars" as a Client Name search will find results with either word in the Client Name.


AND and OR may be used in a search.  Note: they must be capitalized, e.g., "Project AND Finance." 

The + and - sign operators may be used.  The + sign indicates that the term immediately following is required, while the - sign indicates to omit results that contain that term. E.g., "+real -estate" says results must have "real" but not "estate".

To perform an exact phrase search, surround your search phrase with quotation marks.  For example, "Project Finance".

Searches are not case sensitive.

back to top