No.!03

' 13

' 00081

' CV

IN#THE#COURT#OF#APPEALS FOR#THE#THIRD#DISTRICT#OF#TEXAS AT#AUSTIN,#TEXAS

T WENTY# F IRST# C ENTURY# H OLDINGS , I NC

. D / B / A# A MERICAN# G EOTHERMAL# S YSTEMS , I NC ., V ICTOR# D E M ARCO , AND# N. W EST# S HORT

V

.

P RECISION# G EOTHERMAL# D RILLING , L.L.C.

F ROM#THE# C OUNTY# C OURT#AT# L AW# N O

. 2 OF# T RAVIS# C OUNTY , N O

. C

< 1

< CV

< 12

< 12503, H ONORABLE# E RIC# S HEPPERD , J UDGE# P RESIDING

APPELLANT’S#MOTION#FOR#REHEARING

LEAD!COUNSEL: WEST!SHORT!&!ASSOCIATES,!P.C. N.!West!Short State!Bar!No.!00788407 313!West!10th!Street Georgetown,!Texas!78626 512.864.3911 512.864.3966!(Fax) west.short@westshortlawfirm.com

ATTORNEYS#FOR#APPELLANTS

ORAL# ARGUMENT#REQUESTED ACCEPTED 03-13-00081-CV 5163833 THIRD COURT OF APPEALS

AUSTIN, TEXAS 5/5/2015 4:38:36 PM JEFFREY D. KYLE

CLERK1 ISSUES%PRESENTED

I. Because! the! issue! of! unfairness! has! not! been! fully! litigated! or! adjudicated,!the! September!2012!Settlement!Agreement is!a!valid! and! enforceable! agreement.! Thus,! the C ourt! cannot! unilaterally! declare! the! September! 2012! Settlement! Agreement unfair! and!
treat! it! as! void by! failing! to! enforce! it

. Texas! Business! Organization!Code section!101.255!only!gives!the!company!or!the! company’s! members! a! cause! of! action! against! the! “interested! governing! person”! if! the! company! or! the! company’s! members!
beli eve! a! contract! is! not! fair.! Section! 101.255! does! not! automatically! void! an! unfair! contract. Thus ,! Patricia!Denny!must!
assert! a! cause! of! action against! Victor! DeMarco to! determine!
fairness ,! obtain! findings! of! unfairness,! and! obtain! a! judgment! declaring! the September! 2012! Settlement! Agreement! void in! order!to!avoid!the!terms!of!that!agreement.

II. Regardless,! e ven!if! the Court!has!authority! to!determine! fairness! (which! it! does! not),! the! evidence! shows! that! Mr.! DeMarco’s! release! of! his! personal! claims! agains t! Ms.! Denny! and! the! other! items! Mr.! DeMarco! was! willing! to! give! in! exchange! for! a! “walk

R away”!settlement

, do!have!value,! value! that!may!be even!beyond! the!$5,100.00! negotiated!for the!July!2012!Settlement!Agreement.!

III. Because! the September! 2012! Settle ment! Agreement! is! valid! and! enforceable,! and! Mr.! DeMarco! was! denied! mediation! by! the! Justice! Court,! this! Court! should! compel arbitration! pursuant! to! the September!2012!Settlement!Agreement.2 STATEMENT%OF%FACTS

This! case! originally! arose! under! a! Drilling! Agreement. PGD (a!

company! owned! in! part! by! Patricia! Denny! and! Victor! DeMarco)

contended! that! AGSI (a! company! owned! by! Mr.! DeMarco) owed!

amounts!to!PGD! under!the!Drilling!Agreement,!and!AGSI!contended!that!

it!was!required!to!pay!a!third!party!to!do what!PGD!was!required!to!do,!

namely!install!pilings,!and! that!it!didn’t!agree! to!pay! for!any!extras! for!

which!it!was!being!billed!by!PGD! (the!“Drilling!Dispute”).! (CR!38

R 44.)

While! the! Drilling! Dispute! was! in! litigation, a separate! dispute!

arose! between! M r.! DeMarco! and! PGD! concerning! Patricia! Denny ’s!

operation! of! PGD! and! her refusal! to! provide! documents! and! other!

information! he! had! requested! as! a! 49%! owner! of! PGD (the! “PGD!

Dispute”). Her!refusal! to!provide!the!requested!records!to!Mr.!DeMarco!

was!a!violati on!of! the! Texas B usiness Organizations!Code

.!

O n! our! about! June! 29,! 2012,! AGSI! and! PGD settled! the! Drilling!

Dispute! for! a! lump

R sum! payment! by! AGSI! to! PGD! of! $5,100.00,! which!

settlement! was! confirmed! by! way! of! a! Rule! 11! Agre ement! drafted! by!

PGD’s!counsel and! filed!with! the! JP!Court .! ( CR!62. )! On or!about! July!6,!

2012,! PGD! drafted! and! sent! a! settlement! agreement! to! AGSI’s! counsel!

con firming!the!Drilling!Settlement.! ( CR!63

R 64 )3 On! or! about! July! 9,! 102, PGD! repudiated! the!Drilling!Settlement,!

retracted!the!settlement!agreement!it!had!sent,!and!demanded!that!Mr.!

DeMarco! also! agree!to!release!all!claims!arising!from!the!PGD!Dispute!as!

well,!which!was!not! part!of! the!Drilling!Settlement. ( CR!12;!CR!75

R 77. )

Mr.!DeMarco!refused to!release!his!claims

.!

When PGD! finally! pro duced!the!documents!that!Mr.!DeM arco!had!

been!requesting,! the!documents revealed,!among!other!things,!that:!(1)!

PGD!had!not!filed a!tax!return!for!2011

,! generated!any!K

R 1!statements!

to!the!ow ners!of!PGD!for!2011 ,!or!obtained!an!extension!from!the!IRS!to!

file! PGD’s! 2011! tax! returns ( see CR! 233) ;! (2)! no! meetings! of! the!

members! or! managers! of! PGD! had! ever! occurred;! (3)! without! Mr.!

DeMarco’s! knowledge! or! consent,! PGD! had! hired! and! been! paying!Ms.!

Denny’s! husband! as! a! “consultant”! to! PGD;! (4)! without!Mr.!DeMarco’s!

knowledge!or!consent,!Ms.!Denny!had!retroactively!changed!her!capital!

contributions! to! PGD! for! 2010! and! 2011! into! a! promissory! note! she!

signed! on! behalf! of! PGD! to! her! husband;! (5)! Mr.! DeMa rco! was! and!

always!had!been!a!Manager!of!PGD,!notwithstanding!representations!by!

Ms.!Denny! to!Mr.!DeMarco! and! others! that! she!was! the! sole!Manager;!

and! (6)! PGD!is!minimally! capitalized,!and! hasn’t! done!any! business! or!

made!any!income!since!2011. (CR!79

R 85. )4 Because! PGD! refused! to! proceed! with! the! July! 2012! Settlement!

Agreement without!Mr.!DeMarco’s! release!of!claims!against!Ms.!Denny!

and!PGD ,!and! failed! to! timely!produce!PGD’s!books!and! records! to!Mr.!

DeMarco,! it! is! suspected! that! Ms.! Denny! knew! all! along! t hat! she! was!

mismanaging! PGD and! wanted! to! protect! herself from!liability! for! her!

mismanagement!of!PGD

.!

Also,! PGD!refused!to!submit!its!federal!tax!returns!for!2011!u nless!

and! until! Mr.! DeMarco! paid the! $5,100.00! under! the! July! 2012!

Settlement!Agreement

,! wh ich!PGD!had!already!repudiated

. ( CR!70

R 72. )

PGD’s! counsel! again! stated that! unless!Mr.!DeMarco! released! his!

claims!arising!from!the!PGD!Dispute,!PGD!would!set the!Drilling!Lawsuit!

for! trial.!When Mr.!Demarco!did!not!agree! to!release!his!claims!arising!

fr om! the! PGD! Dispute,! PGD’s! counsel,! having! repu diated! the! Drilling!

Settlement

, set!the!Dri lling!Lawsuit!for!another!trial. (CR! 78 .)

In! addition! to! giving! Ms.! Denny! the! release! she! so! despe rately!

want ed ,! the September!2012!Settlement!Agreement was! also!intended!

to! restore! PGD! into! compliance! with! state! and! federal laws.! In! the!

September! 2012! Settlement! Agreement,! Mr.! DeMarco! settled! both! the!

Drilling!Dispute!and!the!PGD!Dispute!for!a!“walk!away, ”!meaning!that!all!

parties

— PGD,! AGSI,! Ms.! Denny,! and! Mr .! DeMarco

— would release all!5 claims! against! each! other ,!without! any! payment! by! any! party.! ( CR! 79

R

85. ) Given! the! irregularities! in! PGD ’s! books! &! records! produced,! the!

extreme!delays!in!producing!such!records,!and! the! failure! to! file!PGD’s!

2011!tax!return,!Mr .!DeMarco! also! agreed!to!hire!and!pay!a!CPA!firm!to!

prepare! PGD’s! tax! return! for! 2011 and! balance! and! rehabilitate! PGD’s!

books! and! records ,! at! his! own! expense

. ( CR! 81. ) The! September! 2012!

Settlement!Agreement also! included a!mediation!and!arbitration!clause!

to!settle!a ny!further! disputes!between!the!parties.! (CR!84.)6 ARGUMENT

I. Because%the%issue%of%unfairness%has%not%been%fully%litigated%or% adjudicated,% the% September%2012% Settlement%Agreement% is% a%
valid% and% enforceable% agreement.% Thus,% the% Court% cannot% unilaterally% declare% the% September% 2012% Settlement% Agreement%unfair%and%treat% it%as%void%by%failing%to%enforce% it.% Texas%Business%Organization%Code%section%101.255%only%gives% the% company% or% the% company’s% members% a% cause% of action% against% the% “interested% governing%person”% if% the%company% or% the%company’s%members%believe%a%contract%is%not%fair.%Section% 101.255%does%not%automatically%void%an%unfair%contract. Thus,% Patricia% Denny% must% assert% a% cause% of% action% against% Victor%

DeMa rco%to%determine%fairness,%obtain%findings%of%unfairness,% and% obtain% a% judgment% declaring% the September% 2012% Settlement%Agreement%void in%order%to%avoid%the%terms%of%that% agreement

.

Texas! Business! Organizations! Code! section! 101.255! provides,! in!

relevant!part:!

§! 101.255.! Contracts! or!Transactions! Involving! Interested! Governing!Persons!or!Officers

(a)! This! section! applies! to! a! contract! or! transaction! between!a!limited!liability! company!and: (1)! one! or! more! governing! persons! or! officers,! or! one! or! more! affiliates! or! associates! of! one! or! more! governing! persons! or! officers,! of! the!

company;!or (2)! an!entity!or!other!organization!in!which!one!or! more! governing! persons! or! officers,! o r! one! or! more! affiliates! or! associates! of! one! or! more! governing!persons!or!officers,!of!the!company: (A)!is!a!managerial!official;!or (B)!has!a!financial!interest.7 (b)! An! otherwise! valid! and! enforceable! contract! or! transaction! described! by! Subsection! (a) is! valid! and! enforceable,! and! is! not! void! or! voidable,! notwithstanding! any! relationship! or! interest! described! by! Subsection! (a),! if! any! one! of! the! following!conditions!is!satisfied: (1)! the! material! facts! as! to! the! relationship! or! interest! described! by! S ubsection! (a)! and! as! to! the! contract! or! transaction! are! disclosed! to! or! known!by: (A)! the! company's! governing! authority! or! a! committee!of!the!governing!authority!and! the! governing! authority! or! committee! in! good! faith! authorizes! the! contract! or!
transaction by! the! approval! of! the! majority! of! the! disinterested! governing! persons! or! committee! members,! regardless! of! whether! the! disinterested! governing! persons! or! committee! members!constitute!a!quorum;!or (B)! the! members! of! the! company,! and! the! members! in! good! fa ith! approve! the! contract! or! transaction! by! vote! of! the! members;!or (2)! the! contract! or! transaction! is! fair! to! the! company! when! the! contract! or! transaction! is! authorized,! approved,! or! ratified! by! the! governing! authority,! a! committee! of! the! governing! author ity,! or! the! members! of! the!

company

... (d)! A! person! who! has! the! relationship! or! interest! described!by!Subsection!(a)!may: (1)! be!present!at!or!participate!in!and,!if!the!person! is! a! governing! person! or! committee! member,! may! vote! at! a! meeting! of! the! governin g! authority! or! of! a! committee! of! the! governing! authority! that! authorizes! the! contract! or! transaction;!or8 (2)! sign,! in! the! person's! capacity! as! a! governing! person! or! committee! member,! a! written! consent!of!the!governing!persons!or!committee! members! to! autho rize! the! contract! or!
transaction. (e)! If%at%least%one%of%the%conditions%of%Subsection%(b)%is% satisfied,% neither% the% company% nor% any% of% the% company's% members% will% have% a% cause% of% action% against% any% of% the% persons% described% by% Subsection% (a)% for% breach% of% duty% with% respect% to% the%making,% authorization,% or%performance% of% the% contract% or% transaction% because% the% person% had% the% relationship% or% interest% described% by% Subsection% (a)% or% took% any% of% the% actions% authorized%by%Subsection%(d).

(Emphasis!added.) ( See Appendix!1.)

The!goal!of!statutory!construction!is!to!give!effect!to!the!intent!of!

the!legislature.! Sorokolit*v.*Rhodes ,!889!S.W.2d!239,!241! (Tex.!1994)

.! If!

language!in!a!statute!is!unambiguous,!this!court!must!seek!the!intent!of!

the!legislature!as!found! in!the!plain!and!common!meaning!of!the!words!

and! terms! used. Id. In! applying! the! plain! and! common!meaning! of! the!

language! in! a! statute,! courts! may! not! by! implication! enlarge! the!

meaning!of!any!word!in! the!statute!beyond!its!ordinary!meaning;!such!

implicati on! is! inappropriate! when! legislative! intent! may! be! gathered!

from!a!reasonable!interpretation!of!the!statute!as!it!is!written. Id.

A! plain! reading! of! section! 101.255! establishes that! unless! and!

until! Ms.! Denny! and /or PGD! assert s a! cause! of! action! against! Mr.!9 DeMarco! and! obtain s a! judgment! voiding! the! September! 2012!

Settlement! Agreement,! the! September! 2012! Settlement! Agreement

,!
including!the!arbitration!clause!within!it, is!valid!and fully!enforceable.

Texas! Business! Organizations! Code! section! 101.255! does! not! declare!

that!an! unfair! contract!with!an! “interested!governing! person”!is! per*se

void! or! voidable.! Rather,! section! 101.255,! in! subsection! (e),! merely!

provides!PGD!and!Ms.!Denny!with!a!cause!of!action!against!Mr.!DeMarco

if!they!believe!that!the!September!2012!Settlement!Agreement!is!unfair!

to! PGD.! Thus,! in! order! to! a void! the terms! of! the September! 2012!

Settlement! Agreement,! Ms.! Denny! and! PGD! must! litigate! the! fairness!

issue! and! obtain! a! judgment! voiding! the! September! 201 2! Settlement!

Agreement.!

Because!Ms.!Denny!and!PGD!have! not!asserted!a!cause!of!action to!

void! the! September! 2012! Settlement! Agreement,! this! Court! must!

enforce!it.!

II. Regardless,% even% if% the% Court% has% authority% to% determine% fairness% (which% it% does% not), the% evidence% shows% that% Mr.% DeMarco’s% release% of% his% personal% claims% against% Ms.% Denny% and% the% other% items% Mr.% DeMarco% was% willing% to% give% in% exchange% for%a%“walk

X away”%settlement,%do%have%value,%value% that% may% be% even% beyond% the% $5,100.00% negotiated% for% the% July%2012%Settlement%Agreement.10 Here,! the! Court! has! no! authority! to! determine! whether! the!

September! 2012! Settlement! Agreement! is! un fair! to! PGD.! W hether! a

transaction!is! fair! is!a! fact! question! for!the!jury!to!determine from!all!the!

fact s!and!circum stances!of!the!case.! Wilson*Fin.*Co.*v.*State ,!342!S.W.2d!

117,! 125!(Tex.!Civ.!App.

— Austin!1960

, writ!ref’d!n.r.e. )

.!

Ho wever,! even! if! the! Court! has authority! to! determine! the fact!

issue of! fairness

, the! facts! demonstrate! that! the September! 2012!

Settlement!Agreement!was!more! than! fair! to! PGD! and!Ms.!Denny.! The!

fact! that! Ms.! Denny repudiated! the! July! 2012! Settlement! Agreement!

( which! she! and! her! a ttorneys! negotiated,! agreed! to! and! d rafted),!

refused! to! settle! the!Drilling!Dispute!without!Mr.!DeMarco’ s! release! of!

his! claims! against! her! for! mismanaging! PGD,! and! was! willing! to! go! to!

trial!again,!shows! that!she!certainly!placed!a!good!deal!of!value! o n!Mr.!

DeMarco’s! release! of! his! claims! against! her.! Also,! the! fact! that! PGD

(under!Ms.!Denny’s!mismanagement ) was!not!going!to!timely!file!its!tax!

return wa s!harmful!to!PGD ,!since! the!IRS!had!not!granted!an!extension!

to! PGD! to! file! its! tax! return late .! ( CR! 233) .! Mr.! DeMarco! released! his!

claims!against!Ms.!Denny!and!agreed!to!hire!and!pay ,!out!of!his!pocket, a!

CPA!firm!to!file!PGD’s!overdue!tax!returns!and!balance and!rehabilitate

PGD’ s!books and!records in the! September!2012!Settlement!Agreement.!11 Thus,!under the! September!2012!Settlement!Agreement,!Ms. Denny! got!

the!release!she!so!despe rately!want ed and! also got PGD’s!books!in!order!

and!in!compliance!with!state!and!federal!laws

.!

Because! the! facts! demonstrate! that! the! September! 2012!

Settlement! Agreement! was! more! than! fair! to! PGD! and! Ms.! Denny,!

probably! even!more! fair! than! a!lump

R sum! payment! of! $5,100.00! from!

AGSI,! the!Court!should!make!no!determination!that! the! September!2012!

Settlement!Agreement is!unfair,!if the!Court even!has authority!to!make!

such!determination!(which!it!does!not).!

III. Because% the September% 2012% Settlement% Agreement% is% valid% and% enforceable,% and%Mr.%DeMarco%was%denied%mediation%by% the% Justice% Court,% this% Court% should% compel% arbitration%
pursuant%to% the September%2012%Settlement%Agreement.

Regarding! Foot note!6!in!the!Court’s!Opinion,! Mr.!DeMarco!did,!in!

fact,! ask! the! Justice! Court! to! refer! the! dispute! between! the! parties! to!

mediation

.! ( CR! 362 ,! bottom! of! the! page .) .! H owever,! the! Justice! Court!

ignored! Mr.! DeMarco’s! request! for! mediation! and! denied! arbitration

.
( CR! 222

R 223

. ) B ecause the! Justice! Court! made mediation impossible,!

lack!of!mediation should!not!be!an!additional!reason!to!refuse!to!compel!

arbitration.!12 PRAYER

For!the!reasons!above,! Appellants Twenty!First!Century!Holdings,!

Inc.!d/b/a!American!Geothermal!Systems,!Inc.!and!Vic tor!DeMarco!pray!

that!the!Court:

(1) V acate or! rescind its! determination! that! the! September! 2014!

Sett lement!Agreement!is!not!fair;

(2) enter! an! order! compelling! the! part ies! to! arbitrate! any!

remaining!disputes!between!them; and!

(3) grant! Appellants any! other! and! further! relief! to! which! they!

may!be!entitled.

Respectfully!submitted,!

WEST!SHORT!&!ASSOCIATES,!P.C.

By: /s/!N.!West!Short N.!West!Short State!Bar!No.!00788407 313!West!10th!Street Georgetown,!Texas!78626 512.864.3911 512.864.3966!(Fax) west.short@westshortlawfirm.com

Of!Counsel:
Tracia!Y.!Lee State!Bar!No.!24013021 TRACIA!Y.!LEE,!P.L.L.C. P.O.!Box! 171022 Austin,!Texas!7871713 512.814.6167 512.271.6806!(Fax) tlee@tleelaw.com

ATTORNEY S FOR% APPELLANTS

CERTIFICATE%OF%COMPLIANCE

I! certify! that! I! drafted! Appellant ’s! Motion! for! Rehearing using! Microsoft!Word!for!Mac!2011!using! Cambria 14

R point!font! and!that!the! Motion!for!Rehearing contains! 2500 words.!

/s/! Tracia!Y.!Lee Tracia!Y.!Lee

CERTIFICATE%OF% CONFERENCE

Per!local!rule 54 ,! I!certify! that! I!have!conferred!with! Jason!Snell,! attorney!for!Appellees,!and!he!opposes!this!Motion.!

/s/!N.!West!Short N.!West!Short14 CERTIFICATE%OF%SERVICE

I! hereby! certify! that! a! true! and! correct! copy! of! the! foregoing! document!wa s! served! via! facsimile ,! e

R mail, or! e

R service,!in! accordance! with! the! Texas! Rules! of! Appellate! Procedure, on! this! 5th day! of! May

, 2015 upon!the!following:

The!Snell!Law!Firm,!P.L.L.C. Jason!Snell The!Littlefield!Building
106!E.!6 th Street,!Suite!330 Austin,!Texas!78701 512.477.5291 512.477.5294!(Fax)

ATTORNEYS*PRECISION* GEOTHERMAL*DRILLING*LLC

/s/!N.!West!Short N.!West!Short15 No.!03

R 13

R 00081

R CV

IN%THE%COURT%OF%APPEALS FOR%THE%THIRD%DISTRICT%OF%TEXAS AT%AUSTIN,% TEXAS

T WENTY% F IRST% C ENTURY% H OLDINGS , I NC

. D / B / A% A MERICAN% G EOTHERMAL% S YSTEMS , I NC ., V ICTOR% D E M ARCO , AND% N. W EST% S HORT

V

.

P RECISION% G EOTHERMAL% D RILLING , L.L.C.

F ROM%THE% C OUNTY% C OURT%AT% L AW% N O

. 2 OF% T RAVIS% C OUNTY , N O

. C

X 1

X CV

X 12

X 12503, H ONORABLE% E RIC% S HEPPERD , J UDGE% P RESIDING

APPELLANT ’S%APPENDIX

ITEM!1 Texas!Business!Organizations!Code! § 101.255No.!03

' 13

' 00081

' CV

IN#THE#COURT#OF#APPEALS FOR#THE#THIRD#DISTRICT#OF#TEXAS AT#AUSTIN,#TEXAS

T WENTY# F IRST# C ENTURY# H OLDINGS , I NC

. D / B / A# A MERICAN# G EOTHERMAL# S YSTEMS , I NC ., V ICTOR# D E M ARCO , AND# N. W EST# S HORT

V

.

P RECISION# G EOTHERMAL# D RILLING , L.L.C.

APPELLANT’S#MOTION#FOR#REHEARING



# ITEM!1

Texas!Business!Organizations!Code §! 101.255§ 101.255. Contracts or Transactions Involving Interested..., TX BUS ORG § 101.255

© 2015 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 1 	

		 		 	

 !"#"$%	#& 	 '&()(!"#"$%	#& 	 $*'&+!,#

!!!!-		.()(!/00

.()(!/00!	*	*	12	213	24		*

5*26&#$(-/)((


(a) This section applies to a contract or transaction between a limited liability company and:

(1) one or more governing persons or officers, or one or more affiliates or associates of one or more governing persons or officers, of the company; or

(2) an entity or other organization in which one or more governing persons or officers, or one or more affiliates or associates of one or more governing persons or officers, of the company:

(A) is a managerial official; or

(B) has a financial interest.

(b) An otherwise valid and enforceable contract or transaction described by Subsection (a) is valid and enforceable, and is not void or voidable, notwithstanding any relationship or interest described by Subsection (a), if any one of the following conditions
is satisfied:

(1) the material facts as to the relationship or interest described by Subsection (a) and as to the contract or transaction are disclosed to or known by:

(A) the company's governing authority or a committee of the governing authority and the governing authority or committee in good faith authorizes the contract or transaction by the approval of the majority of the disinterested governing persons or committee members, regardless of whether the disinterested governing persons or committee members constitute a

quorum; or

(B) the members of the company, and the members in good faith approve the contract or transaction by vote of the members;

or§ 101.255. Contracts or Transactions Involving Interested..., TX BUS ORG § 101.255

© 2015 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 2 (2) the contract or transaction is fair to the company when the contract or transaction is authorized, approved, or ratified by the governing authority, a committee of the governing authority, or the members of the company.

(c) Common or interested governing persons of a limited liability company may be included in determining the presence of a quorum at a meeting of the company's governing authority or of a committee of the governing authority that authorizes the
contract or transaction.

(d) A person who has the relationship or interest described by Subsection (a) may:

(1) be present at or participate in and, if the person is a governing person or committee member, may vote at a meeting of the governing authority or of a committee of the governing authority that authorizes the contract or transaction; or

(2) sign, in the person's capacity as a governing person or committee member, a written consent of the governing persons or
committee members to authorize the contract or transaction.

(e) If at least one of the conditions of Subsection (b) is satisfied, neither the company nor any of the company's members will have a cause of action against any of the persons described by Subsection (a) for breach of duty with respect to the making, authorization, or performance of the contract or transaction because the person had the relationship or interest described by Subsection (a) or took any of the actions authorized by Subsection (d).

**Credits** Acts 2003, 78th Leg., ch. 182, § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 2006 . Amended by Acts 2009, 81st Leg., ch. 84, § 44, eff. Sept. 1, 2009 ; Acts 2011, 82nd Leg., ch. 139 (S.B. 748), § 38, eff. Sept. 1, 2011

.

V. T. C. A., Business Organizations Code § 101.255, TX BUS ORG § 101.255 Current through the end of the 2013 Third Called Session of the 83rd Legislature

**End of Document** © 2015 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.