Court Opinion

ID: 9730242
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 15:06:32.14612+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:26:05.215951
License: Public Domain

BILL VANCE, Justice,
dissenting.
I would sustain Acadian’s second issue and hold that the Plaintiffs’ claims based on “profit sharing plans” fail as a matter of law.
PGS acquired Acadian through an transaction described as a “reverse triangular merger.” PGS caused a wholly-owned subsidiary to merge with Acadian, and Acadian’s shareholders received shares of PGS in exchange for their shares of Acadi-an. Acadian survived as a subsidiary of PGS. Acadian received no “proceeds.”
Furthermore, the plaintiffs’ contracts relate to “profits.” Proceeds that Acadian might have received from PGS does not translate into profits.
We sustain a no-evidence issue when the record reveals one of the following: (1) a complete absence of evidence of a vital fact; (2) rules of law or rules of evidence bar the appellate court from giving weight to the only evidence offered to prove a vital fact; (3) the evidence offered to prove a vital fact is no more than a scintilla; or (4) the evidence conclusively establishes the opposite of a vital fact. Juliette Fowler Homes, Inc. v. Welch Assoc., Inc., 793 S.W.2d 660, 666 n. 9 (Tex.1990) (citing Calvert, “No Evidence” and “Insufficient Evidence” Points of Error, 38 Tex. L.Rev. 361, 362-363 (1960)). I find no evidence to support a finding that “profit sharing plan” means “proceeds”; indeed, the evidence conclusively establishes the opposite of *306that fact. See id. Thus, the judgment that the plaintiffs are entitled to any part of the “proceeds” of the “sale” of Acadian should not stand. Because the majority holds otherwise, I respectfully dissent.
--