WPC {mrUe-[JKsN9vMkpUB;JG?tL֛j97ʤF\rt/njuCѷR(c)!Hccxpvaݻ뿝W" j003qK0e@Ii ljCL}XpUI7((Їo)M 3J"amHn9zbLyKn\Rež单VWSQK}H@KT oyOy čX &PɂBí-C.*jx)` `@E( ` 8ttxP)` tߛGWilliamA.Hall,derivatively  ) `  onbehalfofTennessee h   ) 6   DressedBeefCo.,   h   )  \    Plaintiff/Appellant,  )  2  v.   `     h   )   RichardN.Hall,   h   )     Defendant/Appellee. h   ) d  @  S XXF!COURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE > @| | MIDDLESECTIONATNASHVILLE@APPEALFROMTHECHANCERYCOURT,PARTTHREE@ ATNASHVILLE,TENNESSEE@THEHONORABLEROBERTS.BRANDT,CHANCELLOR#XF!X  S#Ԉ .~ JEFFERYA.GREENEALVINL.HARRISGreene&GreeneP.O.Box198768323UnionStreetNashville,Tennessee372198768  ATTORNEYSFORPLAINTIFFS/APPELLANTSJOHNS.HICKSDARWINA.HINDMANIIIBaker,Donelson,Bearman&CaldwellAProfessionalCorporation1700NashvilleCityCenter511UnionStreetNashville,Tennessee37219  ATTORNEYSFORDEFENDANTS/APPELLEES@AFFIRMEDINPART,REVERSEDINPART,ANDREMANDED;!XXF!   `     h     SAMUELL.LEWIS,JUDGE ;6>x   @'OPINIONXF!X;!Ԉ    Thisisanappealbyplaintiffs/appellants,WilliamA.HallandBeefTransport,Inc.(: ::":BTI:::":),fromanorderofthechancerycourtgrantingsummaryjudgmentinfavorofdefendants/appellees,RichardA.HallandTennesseeDressedBeefCompany(: ::":TDBC:::":).  WilliamHallandRichardHallarebrothers.In1962,theyincorporatedTDBC.From1962until1992,WilliamHallandRichardHalleachownedonethird(7,500shares)oftheoutstandingshares,andLouisandPatrickMcRedmondeachownedonesixth(3,750shares)oftheoutstandingshares.ThreeyearsafterformingTDBC,theHallsincorporatedBTIanddividedBTI;;;';soutstandingsharesequally.TheprimarypurposeofBTIwastoprovidehaulingservicestoTDBC,butitalsoprovidedtransportationservicestothirdparties.BTI;;;';sofficeswereinthesamebuildingastheofficesofTDBC.  Initially,theHallswerebothactiveinthedailyoperationsofTDBCandbothservedasdirectors.Moreover,RichardHallservedasPresidentofthecompany.Inthelate60;';;';sorearlyϜ70;';;';s,thebrothersbegantodisagreeaboutcorporatedecisions.Inthesummerof1988,WilliamHallestablishedanexternalofficeinBrentwood,TennesseeinordertoassessTDBC;;;';sdiversificationoptions.Thismovealsooperatedtoseparatethetwobrotherswhocouldnolongerworktogether.Asaresultofthemove,WilliamHallwasnotactiveinthedaytodayoperationsofTDBC.  NeitheroftheMcRedmondsparticipatedinthemanagementofTDBC.Further,itisclearthattheMcRedmondswerenotpleasedwiththewaytheHallscarriedonthebusinessofTDBC.Infact,theMcRedmondsevenfiledalawsuitagainsttheHalls,butwereunsuccessful. TennesseeDressedBeefCo.v.Hall ,519S.W.2d805 83> (Tenn.App.1974). r:5@ Ї  In1992,theInternalRevenueService(: ::":IRS:::":)auditedBTI;;;';staxreturns.BecausethebrothersalsoownedTDBC,theIRSbegantoauditTDBC;;;';sbooksaswell.::ThefocusoftheinvestigationwasthepriceschargedbyBTItoTDBC.ThehighpricesconcernedtheIRSbecausetheycausedatransferofincomefromTDBCtoBTI,asubchapterScorporation.DespitetheIRS;;;';sconcern,itdidnotrequireeithercompanytomakeanyadjustments.  TheHallssoonbegantonegotiatewithoneanotherforthesaleoftheother;;;';sTDBCstock.Becausetheirattemptswereunsuccessful,theyindividuallyapproachedtheMcRedmonds.WilliamHallwasfirsttoapproachtheMcRedmonds,butwasunabletostrikeadeal.HeclaimedthathisunsuccessfulattemptswereduetothedeceitofRichardHall.Toexplain,TDBCsoldproducttoNashvilleRecycling,Inc.,acompanyownedentirelybytheMcRedmondbrothers.OvertheyearsNashvilleRecyclingaccumulatedanoverdueaccountwithTDBCofapproximately$500,000.00.WilliamHallcontend::edthatRichardHallintentionallyhidthisaccountreceivablefromhimsothatRichardHallcouldusethisdebtasleverageinnegotiatingwiththeMcRedmonds.  AfternegotiatingwithWilliamHall,theMcRedmondscontactedRichardHall.OnbehalfofhimselfandTDBC,RichardHallnegotiatedandenteredintoaStockPurchaseandRedemptionAgreement(: ::":theAgreement:::":)on26October1992.TheAgreementprovidedthatTDBCwouldredeem7,400sharesoftheMcRedmonds;;;';stockat$187.39pershareandthatRichardHallwouldpurchasetheremaining100sharesatthesameprice.TDBCagreedtopaytheMcRedmonds$280,000.00incashatclosingandpromisedtopaytheprincipalof$1,106,724.00oversevenyearsat8.75percentinterest.Inaddition,theAgreementprovidedthatNashvilleRecyclingwouldrepayitsdebttoTDBCoverfiveyearsat6.25percentinterest.Finally,underthetermsoftheAgreement,the 95@ McRedmondsgaveRichardHallproxiestovotetheirsharespendingtheclosingoftheAgreement.  On27October1992,onedayafterexecutingtheAgreement,RichardHallcalledaspecialmeetingofTDBC;;;';sstockholdersfor9November1992.Thepurposeofthemeeting,asstatedinthenotice,wastoamendthebylaws.Theexistingbylawscontainedaprovisiongrantingtheshareholdersarightoffirstrefusal.Accordingtotheprovision,beforeashareholdercouldsellhissharestosomeoneotherthantheoriginalfourshareholders,theothershareholdershadarighttopurchasethesharesatthelowestpriceatwhichtheshareholderofferedtosell.Theamendedbylaws,proposedbyRichardHall,didnotcontainasimilarrestriction.WilliamHallvotedagainsttheamendments,butbecauseRichardHallwasabletovotetwothirdsoftheoutstandingshares,theproposalpassed.WilliamHallclaim::edthatneitherhenorthecorporation;;;';sattorneyhadanyknowledgeoftheAgreementpriortothemeeting.  Followingthe9Novembermeeting,RichardHallcalledameetingofTDBC;;;';sshareholdersandameetingofTDBC;;;';sBoardofDirectors.Bothmeetingsweresetfor18November1992withtheϜshareholders;;;';meetingoccurringfirst.Attheshareholders;;;';meeting,RichardHallusedhismajorityvotetoelectaBoardofDirectorswhichconsistedof:RichardHall;RichardHall;;;';sson,BryanHall;thenewplantmanager,RobertRechter;Dr.LouisMiller;andWilliamHall.Whileatthismeeting,WilliamHalllearnedoftheMcRedmonds;;;';delinquentaccount.FollowingtheϜshareholders;;;';meeting,RichardHallconvenedthedirectors;;;';meeting.Atthattime,RichardHalldisclosedtheexistenceoftheAgreementtoWilliamHallandcorporatecounsel.Thereafter,thenewboardapprovedtheAgreement. 95@   Withtheboard;;;';sapprovaloftheAgreement,RichardHallclosedthedeal.Asaresult,hepresentlyholds50.3percentoftheoutstandingshares,andWilliamHallisnowtheminorityshareholderwith49.7percentoftheoutstandingshares.WilliamHallallege::dthatRichardHall,usinghismajoritypowerandthecooperationofthenewboardmembers,: ::":engagedinnumerousactionthatbenefithimselfpersonallyandworktothedetrimentofW.ϜHall.::;;:":񛀀Specifically,WilliamHallallege3s3::4d4thatRichardHall:1)terminatedWilliamHall;55;;';5s5employmentwithTDBCandhisincomefromTDBCwhichaveraged$150,000.00peryear;2)preventedWilliamHallfrominspectingTDBCandBTIinformation;3)concealedmaterialinformationfromWilliamHall;4)raisedRichardHall;;;';sTDBCincomeanaverageof$150,000.00peryear;and5)unilaterallychangedthetermsofthehaulagecontractwithBTItosubstantiallyeliminateϜBTI;;;';sprofitandincreaseTDBC;;;';sprofit.  WilliamHallandBTIfiledacomplaintinthechancerycourton29April1993.Afterallegingtheabovefactualscenario,theysetforthelevencausesofaction.On29April1993,thechancerycourtenteredatemporaryrestrainingorderandsetadateforahearingonatemporaryinjunction.On18May1993,thechancerycourtenteredanorderentitlingWilliamHalltoinspectthebooksandrecordsofBTI.  On12August1993,RichardHallandTDBCmovedforpartialsummaryjudgment.Thereafter,thechancerycourtenteredanordergrantingthemotionforsummaryjudgmentastoWilliamHall;;;';sderivativeclaimonbehalfofTDBC.On8February1995,RichardHallandTDBCfiledamotionforsummaryjudgment.Thechancerycourtenteredanordergrantingthemotionforsummaryjudgmentanddismissedall6of6thecountsexcept7for7theseventh8withprejudice8.<<:;<<<<;;;:::  #  1      כThereafter, `61< WilliamHallandBTIfiledanoticeofappealandaskedthiscourttoaddressthefollowingissues:8   ` 1. Whetherthetrialcourtproperlydismissed,as P amatterofsummaryjudgment,appellantWilliamHall;;;';sindividualclaimsforbreachofcontractagainst[TDBC]andinterferencewithcontractagainstRichardHall.    8   ` 2. Whetherthetrialcourtproperlydismissed,as P  amatterofsummaryjudgment,appellantWilliamHall;;;';sclaimbroughtderivativelyonbehalfof[TDBC]againstRichardHall.    8   ` 3. Whetherthetrialcourtproperlydismissed,as   amatterofsummaryjudgment,appellantWilliamHall;;;';sclaimtodissolve[TDBC].    8   ` 4. Whetherthetrialcourtproperlydismissed,as l  amatterofsummaryjudgment,appellant[BTI;;;';s]claimsforbreachoffiduciarydutyagainstRichardHall.    8   ` 5. Whetherthetrialcourtproperlydismissed,as  amatterofsummaryjudgment,[BTI;;;';s]breachofcontractclaimagainst[TDBC].    8   ` 6. Whetherthetrialcourtproperlydismissed,as d amatterofsummaryjudgment,appellantWilliamHall;;;';sclaimsforoppressionofminorityshareholderagainstRichardHallbasedonhiscontrollingactionswithrespecttoboth[TDBC]and[BTI].    8   ` 7. Whetherthetrialcourtproperlydismissed,as 8 amatterofsummaryjudgment,appellantWilliamHall;;;';sclaimtoremoveRichardHallasadirectorof[TDBC]and[BTI].     I.  STANDARDOFREVIEW   T!   ThiscourtreviewsthedecisionbelowdenovoapplyingthesameRule56analysisasdidthetrialcourt. Gonzalesv.Alman %d ' Constr.Co. ,857S.W.2d42,45(Tenn.App.1993).Onewhofilesa &,") motionforsummaryjudgmenthastheburdenofestablishingthattherearenogenuineissuesofmaterialfactandthatthelawentitlesthemovingpartytoajudgment. Byrdv.Hall ,847S.W.2d +D'/ 208,215(Tenn.1993).Afterthemovingpartymakesaproperlysupportedmotion,theburdenshiftsandthenonmovingpartymustϜ: ::":setforthspecificfacts,notlegalconclusions,byusingaffidavitsorthediscoverymaterialslistedinRule56.03,establishingthatthereareindeeddisputed,materialfactscreatingagenuineissuethatneedstoberesolvedbythetrieroffactandthatatrialisthereforenecessary.::;;:":񛀀 Id. Inaddition, 72= Rule56expresslyprovidesthat: ::":anadversepartymaynotrestupon t94? themereallegationsordenialsofhispleading....::;;:":񛀀Tenn.R.Civ.P.56.05(1995). II.  ISSUEONE:COUNTSONEANDTWO      Appellants;;<<;';firstissuerelatestothefirsttwocountsinthecomplaint.Inthefirstcount,WilliamHallsetforthabreachofcontractclaimagainstTDBC.Tosupporthisclaim,WilliamHallreliedonthestocktransferrestrictionfoundinthebylawswhichtheshareholdersamendedon9November1992.Priortotheamendment,theprovisionprovidedasfollows:8   ` 5. Nostockshallbesoldbyanystockholder P unlesshehasgiventhecorporationtwentydaysnoticeofhisintentiontosell,duringwhichtimetheotherstockholdersofrecordshallhavetheprivilegeofpurchasingsameatthelowestpriceatwhichsaidstockholderofferstosell,butthisrestrictionshallnotapplytosalesbyandbetweenthefouroriginalstockholders,ortheirheirsorthepersonalrepresentativesoftheirestates.    Inthecomplaint,WilliamHallallegedthatTDBC;;;';sbylawscreatedacontractualrelationshipbetweenhimandTDBC.HethenarguedthatthestocktransferrestrictionrequiredTDBCtonotifyhimoftheMcRedmonds;;<<;';intenttoselltheirstockbacktothecorporationandthatTDBCbreachedthecontractwhenitfailedtocomplywiththisprovisionofthebylaws.Inaddition,WilliamHallincludedasecondcountagainstRichardHallfortortiousinterferencewithcontract.  ItistheopinionofthiscourtthatthechancerycourtproperlygrantedsummaryjudgmentinfavorofappelleesbecauseTDBCwasnotapartynoraprivytothisprovisionofthebylaws.Apersonorentitywhichisneitherapartytoacontractnoraprivytheretoisastrangertothecontract. CherokeeFoundries, 4 0: Inc.v.ImperialAssuranceCo. ,188Tenn.349,354,219S.W.2d203, 61< 205(1949).Further,: ::":contractprovisions...arebindinguponthepartiestotheagreementanddonotbindstrangers.::;;:":񛀀 Smithv. :X5@ Elrod ,No.63,1990WL200584,at*1(Tenn.App.14Dec.1990)  (citing17Am.Jur.2dContracts294(1964)).Itfollowsthat x thisprovisiondidnotcreateabindingcontractwithrespecttoTDBC.Thus,asamatteroflaw,WilliamHallcouldnothavemaintainedabreachofcontractactionagainstTDBC.Moreover,hecouldnothavemaintainedatortiousinterferenceclaimbasedonthepremisethatRichardHallinterferedwiththecontractualrelationbetweenTDBCandWilliamHall.BecauseWilliamHallcouldnotestablishanecessaryelementofbothclaims,theexistenceofacontractualrelationship,summaryjudgmentwasappropriate. III.  ISSUETWO:COUNTTHREE   p   ThethirdcountofthecomplaintisaderivativeactionbroughtbyWilliamHallonbehalfofTDBCagainstRichardHall.Specifically,WilliamHallallegedthatRichardHallbreachedthefiduciarydutiesthatheowedtoTDBC.ThechancerycourtdismissedthiscountafterreviewingamotionforpartialsummaryϜjudgment9filedbyRichardHall9.Althoughthecourt;;;';sorderdidnotcontainanyinsightintothecourt;;;';sreasoning,theonlybasisofthemotionwasthecontentionthatWilliamHalllackedstandingtobringaderivativesuit.  Tennesseelawprovidesthatashareholdermaybringaderivativeactioninthenameofthecorporationtoenforcetherightsofthecorporation.Tenn.CodeAnn.4817401(a)(1995).Inordertobringtheaction,theshareholdermusthavebeenaϜ: ::":shareholderofthecorporationwhenthetransactioncomplainedofoccurredor...thepersonbecameashareholderthroughtransferbyoperationoflawfromonewhowasashareholderatthattime.::;;:": Id. Also,theshareholdermustallegewithparticularitythatthe 62< shareholdermadeademandandtheboardofdirectorsrefusedorignoredthedemandorthattheshareholderchosenottomakea  :p5@ demandandthereasonforthatdecision. Id. 4817401(b).  Additionally,theTennesseeRulesofCivilProcedureprovidethattheshareholdermust: ::":fairlyandadequatelyrepresenttheinterestsoftheshareholdersormemberssimilarlysituated....::;;:":񛀀Tenn.R.Civ.P.23.06.ThepartiesdonotdisputethatWilliamHallfulfilledtherequirementsofthestatute.Theydo,however,disagreeastowhetherWilliamHallmettheadditionalrequirementfoundinRule23.06oftheTennesseeRulesofCivilProcedure.  Insupportofhisargument,RichardHallcitedacasefromtheEasternSectionoftheCourtofAppeals. Waterhousev.Cumberland ` CountyBank ,No.03A019102CH00056andNo.03A019106CH00079, (x 1991WL199480(Tenn.App.Oct.8,1991).In Waterhouse, thecourt @ heldthatapatentconflictofinterestexistswhenaplaintiffattemptstomaintainaderivativeactiononbehalfofacorporationatthesametimetheplaintiffpursuesasecond,individualactionagainstthecorporation. Id. at*2.Thecourtthenconcludedthat   М: ::":asamatteroflaw,theresultingconflictofinterestdisqualifiestheappellant...asaplaintiffwhomaymaintainaderivativeactionpursuanttoRule23.06,TennesseeRulesofCivilϜProcedure.::;;:":񛀀 Id.  p&!(   Thefactsofthepresentcaseareeasilydistinguishedfromthosein Waterhouse .Thecriticaldistinctionisthatin +&.  Waterhouse ,theplaintiff/appellantwasattemptingtorepresenta P-(0 numberofothersimilarlysituatedshareholdersinaderivativeactionwhilerepresentinghisowninterestsinhisindividualsuit. Id. at*1.Incontrast,inthiscase,theminorityshareholders h2-6 representedinthederivativeactionconsistonlyofWilliamHall,thatis,heistheonlysimilarlysituatedshareholder.Rule23.06doesnotrequireaspecificnumberofsimilarlysituatedshareholdersinordertomaintainaderivativeaction.Moreover, (9x4> othercourtsaddressingthisissueinrelationtosimilarrulesofcivilprocedurehaveheldthattheclassofshareholdersrepresentedbythederivativeplaintiffmayconsistofonlyoneperson. Larsonv.Dumke ,900F.2d1363,136869(9thCir.), cert.   Мden;;;';dsubnom . RoundTablePizza,Inc.v.Larson ,498U.S.1012, p  111S.Ct.580,112L.Ed.2d585(1990); Jordonv.BowmanApple 8   Prods.Co. ,728F.Supp.409,41213(W.D.Va1990); HalstedVideo, P  Inc.v.Guttillo ,115F.R.D.177,17980(N.D.Ill.1987); Brandon   v.BrandonConstr.Co. ,776S.W.2d349,35354(Ark.1989); Eye   Site,Inc.v.Blackburn ,796S.W.2d160,16163(Tex.1990).Itis X theopinionofthiscourtthattheclassofshareholderscontemplatedbyRule23.06oftheTennesseeRulesofCivilProceduremayconsistofoneshareholder.Werethisnotthelaw,itisverylikelythatRule23.06woulddeprivetheshareholdersofcloselyheldcorporationsoftheirabilitytobringderivativeactions.  Inappellees;;<<;';motion,RichardHallarguedthatWilliamHalllackedstandingbecausetherewasanactualconflictofinterestandbecauseWilliamHallwasusingthederivativesuitasabargainingchip.Asdiscussedabove,thefirstargumentiswithoutmeritbecauseRichardHallisnotasimilarlysituatedshareholder.Infact,thepotentialforWilliamHalltoinadequatelyrepresentothershareholdersisnonexistent.Giventhis,theexistenceofaderivativeactionandanindividualactiondoesnot,asamatteroflaw,createaconflictofinterest.Next,RichardHall;;;';scontentionthatWilliamHallisusingthederivativesuitasabargainingchipiswhollyunfounded.Moreover,thereisnootherevidenceintherecordtosupportafindingthatWilliamHallisincapableoffairlyrepresentinghisowninterestsandtheinterestsofthecorporationwhileatthesametimemaintaininghisindividualsuit. 884> Ї  Asafinalpoint,wenotethatanyconflictofinterestwhichmayhaveexistedasaresultoffilingbothaderivativesuitandanindividualsuitisnolongerpresent.Toexplain,insectionIIofthisopinion,weheldthatthechancerycourtproperlydismissedWilliamHall;;;';sclaimagainstTDBCforbreachofcontract.TheonlyremainingactionbroughtbyWilliamHallagainstTDBCisoneforjudicialdissolution.Itistheopinionofthiscourtthatthejudicialdissolutionactionandthederivativeactiondonotnecessarilyconflict;therefore,theexistenceofbothisnotareasontodenyWilliamHallstanding.  Fortheforegoingreasons,thechancerycourterredwhenitdismissedthethirdcountofappellants;;<<;';complaint. IV.  ISSUESTHREE,FOUR,FIVE,SIX,ANDSEVEN  0 @ A.FiduciaryDutiesandtheBusinessJudgmentRule  H    Corporateofficersanddirectorsowecertaindutiestothecorporationasaresultoftheirfiduciaryrelationtothecorporation. KnoxTennRentalCo.v.JenkinsIns.,Inc. ,755 &P!( S.W.2d33,36(1988); seeNeesev.Brown ,218Tenn.686,69293, '#* 405S.W.2d577,58081(Tenn.1964);Tenn.CodeAnn.4818301,τ302,403(1995);3FletcherCyclopediaoftheLawofPrivateCorporations 8+&. 837.60(per.ed.rev.vol.1994)[hereinafterFletcher].These ,0(0 dutiesarethedutyofloyaltyandthedutyofcare.3Fletcher .)2 837.60.  : ::":Thedutyofloyaltyinessenceinvolvesconflictingeconomicorothersimilarinterests[and]istransgressedwhenacorporatefiduciary,whetherdirectororofficer,useshisorhercorporateofficetopromote,advanceoreffectuateatransactionbetweenthecorporationandsuchperson,andthattransactionisnot  :p5@ substantivelyfairtothecorporation.::;;:":񛀀 Id. (footnotesomitted).  TheTennesseeGeneralAssemblycodifiedthisconceptofdutywiththeenactmentofTennesseeCodeAnnotated4818302(1995).Specifically,aconflictofinteresttransactioninTennessee: ::":isatransactionwiththecorporationinwhichadirectororofficerofthecorporationhasadirectorindirectinterest.::;;:":񛀀Tenn.CodeAnn.4818302(a)(1995).Ifcertaincircumstancesexist,suchaswhenadirectorfullydiscloseshisorherinterest,thecorporationmaynotvoidthetransactionsolelybecauseoftheϜdirector;;;';sorofficer;;;';sinterest. Id. Thequestionofwhethera  directororofficerhasbreachedtheirdutyofloyaltyisoneoffactanddependsonallofthesurroundingcircumstances.3Fletcher (x 837.60(citing Fitchv.MidlandBank&TrustCo. ,737S.W.2d785,   788(Tenn.App.1987)); seeNeese ,405S.W.2dat581.    Thedutyofcarerequiresbothdirectorsandofficerstoactingoodfaithandinthebestinterestofthecorporation: ::":[w]iththecareanordinarilyprudentpersoninalikepositionwouldexerciseundersimilarcircumstances....::;;:":񛀀Tenn.CodeAnn.4818301(a),403(a)(1995); seeNeese ,405S.W.2dat58081. $& М: ::":Courtsapplythedutyofcareincasesinvolvingallegednegligence,mismanagement,orintentionaldecisionstocommitunlawfulacts.::;;:":񛀀3AFletcher1029.Theissueofwhetherabreach )%, ofthedutyofcareoccurredisoneoffact. Id. 1030.: ::":[I]tis h+&. difficult,andinmanycasesimpossible,todecideinadvance,ortoformulatetestsfordecidingasamatteroflaw,whetherdirectorsorotherofficershavebeenguiltyofthatdegreeofnegligencewhichwillrenderthemliable.::;;:":񛀀 Id.  (2x-6   Theordinarilyprudentpersonstandardisverylow,butcourts donotgenerallyapplyitbecauseofthecommonlawdoctrineknown @72< asthebusinessjudgmentrule.:; ;;;:::  #  2      ׀: ::":Tennessee;;;';scourtshave   consistentlyfollowedanoninterventionistpolicywithregardtointernalcorporatematters.Theyhaverecognizedthatdirectorshavebroaddiscretion....ThesedecisionssquarelyalignTennesseewiththejurisdictionsrecognizingandfollowingtheϜ;;;';businessjudgementrule.;;;';::;;:": Lewisv.Boyd ,838S.W.2d215,220  H  (Tenn.App.1992)(citationsomitted) accord  Frenchv.Appalachian   Elec.Coop. ,580S.W.2d565,570(Tenn.App.1978).Further,for   reasonswhichwillbecomeevidentlater,courtsdonotapplythebusinessjudgmentruletodutyofloyaltyissues.3Fletcher H 837.60.  Thebusinessjudgmentrule: ::":isapresumptionthatinmakingabusinessdecisionthedirectors[andofficers]ofacorporationactedonaninformedbasis,ingoodfaithandinthehonestbeliefthattheactiontakenwasinthebestinterestofthecompany.::;;:": Aronsonv.Lewis ,473A.2d805,812(Del.1984) accord Lewis ,838   S.W.2dat22021.Theprotectionsoftherulewillnotapplywhenthedirectororofficerisinterested,:;;;;:::  #  3      ׀didnotactuallymakea #P$ decision,madeanuninformeddecision,orwasgrosslynegligent. $&  Aronson ,473A.2dat812; see 3AFletcher1036;18BAm.Jur.2d P&!( Corporations1703(1985);19C.J.S.Corporations482(1990). (h#* Oncetheplaintiffhasshownthatthebusinessjudgmentruledoesnotapply,theburdenshiftstothedirectororofficertoestablishthattheactatissuesatisfiedtheordinarycarestandard.3AFletcher1031. . *2 @  B.IssueThree:CountFour   2p-6  30/8   Thethirdissueofappellants;;<<;';appealinvolvesthefourthcountofthecomplaint.Inthatcount,WilliamHallaskedthecourttodissolveTDBC.WilliamHallfirstassertedthatcourtshoulddissolvethecorporationbecausetheactionsofRichardHallwere: ::":illegal,oppressive,orfraudulent....:::":񛀀Tenn.CodeAnn.4824301(2)(B)(1995).Insupportofthiscontention,WilliamHallarguedthatRichardHallhadbreachedthefiduciarydutiesheowedtoTDBCandthatsuchabreachwasconstructivefraud.WilliamHallalsoarguedthatthecourtshoulddissolvethecorporationbecause: ::":corporateassetsarebeingmisappliedorwasted....::;;:":񛀀 Id .X96XXX964824301(2)(D).#X96XXX96d}#X96XXX96Ԁ @ #X96XXX96}#@  C.IssueFour:CountFive  X   Incountfiveofthecomplaint,BTIallegedthatRichardHallbreachedhisfiduciarydutieswhichheowedtoBTIasanofficeranddirectorofthatcompany.Specifically,BTIallegedthatRichardHall;;;';sbreachesincludedloweringthehaulageratespaidtoBTI,divertingbackhaulrevenuesderivedfromBTItoTDBC,divertingbusinessfromBTI,borrowinganexcessiveamountofmoneyfromBTI,andpurchasingatruckforpersonalusewithBTIassets.BTIclaimedthattheseactionsincreasedTDBC;;;';sprofitsanddecreasedBTI;;;';sprofits.@ D.IssueFive:CountSix  P.)2   ThisissueinvolvesacauseofactionforconflictofinterestbroughtbyBTIagainstTDBC.BTIallegedthatRichardHall,actingonbehalfofBTI,improperlyloweredthehaulageratesandthatsuchactionwasaconflictofinteresttransaction.Thisisthesamecauseofactionasdescribedunderissuefour. :P5@ @  E.IssueSix:CountEight :; ;;;:::  #  4      ׈  X96XXX96  Intheeighthcount,WilliamHallallegedthatRichardHall h breachhisfiduciaryduties,butinthisinstance,WilliamHallclaimedthatRichardHallbreachedfiduciarydutiesowedtoWilliamHallasaresultofRichardHall;;;';spositionasamajorityshareholderofTDBC.Specifically,WilliamHallstatedinhisbriefthatRichardHallbreachedhisfiduciarydutiesbycausingTDBCtoenterintothestockpurchaseagreement,byusingTDBC;;;';sassetstofinancethestockredemption,byeliminatingWilliamϜHall;;;';sincome,andbyincreasinghisownsalaryaspresidentofTDBC.#X96XXX96]#@   E.IssueSeven:CountsTenandEleven     ThelasttwocountsofthecomplaintaskthecourttoremoveRichardHallasadirectorofbothBTIandTDBC.Specifically,WilliamHallarguedthesuchactionisappropriatebecauseremovalisinthebestinterestofthecompanyandbecauseRichardHallhasactedfraudulentlyanddishonestlyandhascommittedgrossabusesofauthority.Tenn.CodeAnn.4818109(a)(1995).@# F.Conclusion  '"*   AlloftheclaimsdescribedabovedependonadeterminationofwhetherRichardHallbreachedeitherhisdutyofloyaltyorhisdutyofcare.Bothoftheseissuesinvolvequestionsoffact.Generally,courtsmaynotdeterminequestionsoffactonsummaryjudgment,however;thisisnotalwaysthecase.Innegligencecases,courtsoftenexplainthatproximatecauseisaquestionoffactbestlefttothejury. Haynesv.HamiltonCounty ,883S.W.2d 5P0: 606,612(Tenn.1994).Theythenconcedethatcourtsmayaddress 62< questionsoffactwhen: ::":theuncontrovertedfactsandinferencestobedrawnfrom[thefacts]makeitsoclearthatallreasonablepersonsmustagreeontheproperoutcome.::;;:":񛀀 Id. Itistheopinion P ofthiscourtthatthissameruleoflawisapplicabletothequestionofwhetherafiduciarybreachedhisduties.Nevertheless,thefactsofthiscasearesuchthatreasonablepersonscoulddisagreeastotheissueofwhetherRichardHallbreachedeitherhisdutyofcareorhisdutyofloyalty.Therefore,thetrialcourterredingrantingappellees;;<<;';motionforsummaryjudgment. V.ISSUESIX:COUNTNINE  `   Astotheninthcount,WilliamHallarguedthatRichardHallbreachedhisfiduciarydutyasamajorityshareholderofBTIbyloweringthehaulageratespaidtoBTI,divertingbackhaulrevenuesderivedfromBTItoTDBC,divertingbusinessfromBTI,borrowinganexcessiveamountofmoneyfromBTI,andpurchasingatruckforpersonalusewithBTIassets.TheproblemwithWilliamϜHall;;;';sargumentisthatRichardHalldoesnotownamajorityofϜBTI;;;';sstockandWilliamHalldoesnotownaminorityofthestock.Thebrotherseachownfiftypercentofthecompany.Moreover,WilliamHallisthepresidentofBTIandRichardHallisthesecretary.Inhisbrief,WilliamHalladmittedthisproblemandstated:: ::":Strictlyspeaking,appellantisnota;;;';minority;;;';shareholderofBeefTransport,becausebothheandRichardHalleachown50%ofthestockofthatcompany.Nevertheless,RichardHallcontrolsanddominatesthecorporationbecauseitsbusinessoperationsarerunoutofTennesseeDressedBeef,leaving[WilliamHall]noinfluenceonthebusinessaffairsofthecorporation.::;;:":WilliamHallhasfailedtociteanyauthoritytosupporthispropositionthatoneoftwoequalshareholderswho: ::":controls:::":thecompanyowesafiduciarydutytotheotherequalshareholderasaresultoftheirpositionsasshareholders.Thiscourtisunaware 985@ ofanysuchruleoflaw.BecauseWilliamHallfailedtoestablishanessentialelementofthecase,i.e.thatRichardHallwasamajorityshareholder,thetrialcourtproperlygrantedsummaryjudgment. VI.Conclusions   H    Fortheforegoingreasons,thechancerycourtcorrectlygrantedsummaryjudgmentastoX96XXX96countsone,two,andnine#X96XXX96F#,buterred X  ingrantingsummaryjudgmentastocountsthree,four,five,six,eight,ten,andeleven.Thecaseisremandedtothechancerycourtforanyfurtherproceedings,andthecostsaretaxedequallytoappellantsandappellees.   `     h   ________________________________   `     h     SAMUELL.LEWIS,JUDGECONCUR:_____________________________HENRYF.TODD,P.J.,M.S._____________________________WILLIAMC.KOCHJR.,J.