Court Opinion

ID: 9770165
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 15:52:53.719109+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:31:15.487983
License: Public Domain

ADELE HEDGES, Justice,
concurring.
I concur with the majority’s disposition of this case. I do not agree with the majority and appellee’s reliance on Tenneco, Inc. v. Enterprise Prods. Co., 925 S.W.2d 640, 645 (Tex.1996) and the focus on whether the *466merger was a sale of assets or just a sale of stock.
It is uncontroverted that Mark’s complaint arises from Paramount’s merger with Nuevo. So the only question before this Court is whether a merger violates the non-disclosure agreement. The agreement provided:
SECRECY. [Licensee] agrees that data hereunder shall be for his own use in his exploration and development efforts, and shall not be sold, traded, disposed of, or otherwise made available to third parties, except it may be shown to partners as support evidence for joint ventures.
Our focus should be whether the merger triggers this provision. I do not believe it does.
The Texas merger statute provides that the rights, title, and interests in property of the merging corporations vest in the surviving corporation upon merger without further act or deed and without any transfer having occurred. See Tex. Bus. Corp. Act Ann. art. 5.06 (Vernon Supp.1999). The comments to the Model Business Code, upon which the Texas statute is based, state that a merger is not a conveyance or transfer and that the surviving corporation automatically becomes the owner of all real and personal property in the event of the merger. See Model Bus. Corp. Act Ann. § 11.06 cmt. (1996 Supp.).
The Texas merger statute and the Model Code make clear that all of Paramount’s interests vested in Nuevo immediately upon the merger. See TXO Prod. Co. v. M.D. Mark, Inc., No. 14-97-00105-CV, slip op. at 8, 1999 WL 129932 (Tex.App.—Houston [14th Dist.] March 11, 1999, no pet h.). The rights vests automatically, without transfer, and without further action. Id., slip op. at 8-9, 1999 WL 129932.
Therefore, on its face, the agreement was not triggered by the merger. Mark’s agreement could have contained a specific prohibition against merger, but it did not. As recognized by the majority, courts will not “rewrite agreements to insert provisions parties could have included or to imply restraints for which they have not bargained.” Tenneco, 925 S.W.2d at 646.