Court Opinion

ID: 9780882
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-30 03:10:07.739772+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:34:16.039209
License: Public Domain

PIEPER, J.,
concurs in a separate opinion.
I concur in the decision to reverse and remand. However, I write separately because I would like to address the combination of Menezes’s ten claims for breach of fiduciary duty into one claim by the circuit court.
Menezes brought this lawsuit in 2008 alleging breach of fiduciary duty on the part of the Appellants in all of the following particulars:
(a) by proposing the [mjerger and then allowing it to close notwithstanding the financial condition of FITG;
(b) by approving the [mjerger on terms which gave 65% ownership to the FITG stockholders and diluted the minority shareholders to 35%, or at all [sic];
(c) by not providing accurate and complete information regarding FITG ... or ensuring that such information was provided to them;
(d) to the extent any one of them was not aware of the financial situation of FITG, by failing to learn of the financial situation of FITG and failing to take it into account or see that it was taken into account with regard to the [mjerger;
(e) by failing to ensure that proper due diligence was conducted on behalf of SCI or FITG;
(f) by allowing the representation at the [mjerger closing that MAC Clause condition was satisfied;
(g) by failing to call off or renegotiate the [mjerger (or cause it to be called off or renegotiated) because of the financial condition of FITG;
*598(i) [sic] by allowing the debt previously held by FITG to be transferred to Combined Company and/or by allowing that debt to be converted into preferred stock;
(j) [sic] by allowing or causing the renegotiation [of] the SCI’s credit facility and/or obtaining $100 million of additional preferred stock in connection therewith; and/or
(k) [sic] by otherwise failing to protect the interests of the minority stockholders of SCI.
The circuit court ruled that the breach of fiduciary duty claims could not have arisen prior to the closing of the merger. Appellants neither argued that the claims should be considered separately, nor asked the court to alter or amend its ruling on the issue. Thus, I would find the question of whether or not the court erred in considering Menezes’s claims in combination is not preserved for appellate review. See Wilder Corp. v. Wilke, 330 S.C. 71, 76-77, 497 S.E.2d 731, 733-34 (1998) (finding an issue must have been raised to the trial court in order to be preserved for appellate review and holding post trial motions are necessary to preserve issues that were raised to the trial court but not ruled upon).
Despite this preservation concern, and in light of the reversal and remand of the case by the majority opinion, I note some of the claims could have arisen prior to the closing of the merger and others could have arisen after the closing of the merger. On August 29, 2006, the SCI board of directors approved the merger agreement between SCI and FITG. On September 28, 2006, in exchange for payments totaling approximately $575,000, Menezes signed a Settlement Agreement and Release of All Claims to settle the claims involved in the employment lawsuit. Finally, on October 20, 2006, the merger between SCI and FITG was completed and all preconditions were either satisfied or waived. Importantly, we should recognize the fact that any claims arising between the signing of the release on September 28, 2006, and the finalizing of the merger on October 20, 2006, were valid claims. Furthermore, by analyzing each of Menezes’s claims independently of one another, as opposed to combining them, some of the claims may be barred by Menezes’s release whereas others may not be barred. Although I agree with the majority in distinguishing the cases relied upon by the circuit court, *599I would find the cases nonetheless shed some light on the limiting nature of combining Menezes’s ten claims for breach of fiduciary duty into one claim. Therefore, on remand, even though the court did not do so initially, I would urge the court to break down the acts alleged by Menezes separately, as one or more acts could be deemed a separate breach of fiduciary duty based on when each act occurred.