ÿWPCG1 Ã!B¤H© GÏ×VÍRþ NO½àîFáWÉZà")$ÄUƒN`©{ÇG(„•þ/¤ú¬š¦‘ó`×SÞ)Düg½ëaZ´o¨G¿î«qI×]{{:ÚÀµrïÄ·—~UÞ²6jÉþ„–×-ëfœO"ðoOú­ã0éóOë›($©œ@»i_ÅAMÆNíÏ5Âh/!À«7)¤u ý]_Ü ¦*_£ó6%†ëV£Ã´ŒÉƒ|Ä«:ïÅô ó·íi[¯»¾"l˜¾Ôæ² L?o®dØgèa y·ìØ¼Ü 1½ƒ3<õCYÎèÊ:pÊÞW&]` ªpƒ„çOk.­ ÂæŒò£¥Ë/¦u5±Nv¿µÁ;réú`[{ÆÂKoXëž1)¹IV™`X•¬dÍÔ˜°~Y?ø>sY#¤ëœH¾(#‘41È©î˜ (ÍÂœCǾL¯漡 ó\.åMžÕ’Ú¨¢ç=ï «¿ä¦¿I3h!s|[é8§TW}%¤²ÒÒ?Âÿd¾Ø”Íž#x=*aþ ÆÅ ]J¢ÇÆ‘šz†ê¤ã¦¨T§†ÙÏn;kòn{<~„±W#ÁÂU2Nƒ %Ñ 0F×UN ^ k ww 4{  ž m  UN· 0© 0D® ò B÷ 9 ñA €2‚ ²`4E”!ï–! …"ù#]ˆ$~å%å%c(áj) K+GU,Žœ-œ-œ-œ-œ-œ-œ-œ-œ-œ-œ-œ-œ-œ-œ-œ-œ-œ-œ-œ-œ-œ-œ-œ-œ-œ-œ-œ-œ-œ-œ-œ-œ-œ-œ-œ-œ-œ-œ-œ-œ-œ-œ-œ-œ-œ-œ-œ-œ-œ-œ-œ-œ- B*1˜HP LaserJet 4050 Series PCL 6ÈÈ,,,,ÈÈ0(ÈhH  Z‹6Times New Roman RegularX(iñ$¡¡Ó  ÓÔUSUS.,Ô(í€"  Z6Times New Roman Regular{’+s 8n_+a'ÒProgra3|xÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ(ÈhH  Z 6Times New Roman Regular(Y(2Þa$¤¤Ý ƒiñ!ÝÓ  ÓÔUSUS.,ÔÝ  ÝÔ€ôÛìòXXÔà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó ûÝ ƒ Þa$ÝÓ  ÓÔUSUS.,ÔÔ€ôÛìòXXÔà  àòòÚ  Ú12Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔHe€admitted€in€his€deposition€that€loss€of€this€contract€would€greatly€affect€the€conclusions€he€had€made. 8Ñ8€%LXXdìXXdì8Ñ  çÝ ƒ Þa$ÝÓ  ÓÔUSUS.,ÔÔ€ôÛìòXXÔà  àòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔThey€claim€damage€to€value€of€the€common€stock€of€Pointer€Oil,€exposure€of€the€Pointers€to€potentialÐ ° Ðindividual€liability€under€a€guaranty,€denial€of€compensation€to€the€Pointers€which€required€them€to€incur€personal€debt,Ð tÄ Ðand€subjecting€them€to€ridicule€and€embarrassment€as€well€as€emotional€distress. vÝ ƒ Þa$ÝÓ  ÓÔUSUS.,ÔÔ€ôÛìòXXÔà  àòòÚ  Ú5Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ‡ ôÛìòòôÛìÔÔ_ÔTECCÔ_Ô€and€Mr.€Cohen€answered€and€counterclaimed,€alleging€fraud€and€interference€with€business€relations.€Ð ° ÐÔ_ÔTECCÔ_Ô€counterclaimed€for€all€amounts€due€under€various€agreements€with€the€plaintiffs.€€The€Pointers€answered€theÐ tÄ Ðcounterclaim€asserting€defenses€of€waiver,€lack€of€subject€matter€jurisdiction,€fraud€and€duress.Ô#†ôÛìòò ôÛì#Ô x Ý ƒ Þa$ÝÓ  ÓÔUSUS.,ÔÔ€ôÛìòXXÔà  àòòÚ  Ú8Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔThe€record€includes€the€deposition€of€the€director€of€the€office€of€liquidation€for€the€SBA.€€He€was€involvedÐ ° Ðin€the€liquidation€of€Ô_ÔTECCÔ_Ô.€€He€testified€that€the€receivership€action€was€instituted€in€part€because€Ô_ÔTECCÔ_Ô€had€improperlyÐ tÄ Ðtaken€control€of€a€number€of€portfolio€concerns.€€In€some€instances€that€was€done€by€use€of€a€pawn€or€strawman.€Ð 8ˆ ÐSpecifically€with€regard€to€Pointer€Oil,€the€SBA€witness€testified,€ð ðI€donððt€think€the€record€establishes€that€Walter€CohenÐ üL Ðwas€operating€or€running€Pointer€Oil€Company.€€And€I€didnððt€regard€John€Pointer€as€a€pawn€or€a€front€man€for€WalterÐ À ÐCohen.ðð€€The€witness€later€clarified€that€if€it€were€proved€that€Ô_ÔTECCÔ_Ô€controlled€Pointer€Oilððs€money,€that€might€be€anÐ „Ô Ðindicator€of€control.€€However,€he€stated€it€was€not€unusual€or€improper€for€a€small€business€investment€company€to€place€Ð H ˜ Ðnegative€covenants€or€restrictions€on€operational€expenditures€by€a€small€business€entity€as€part€of€the€initial€financing.€Ð  \ ÐPrecision€in€defining€the€exact€nature€and€basis€of€the€federal€courtððs€determination€in€the€receivership€action€is€notÐ Ð  Ðnecessary€for€a€determination€of€the€issue€before€us.€€The€factual€issue€of€control€would€likely€have€to€be€decided€in€thisÐ ” ä  Ðaction€if€summary€judgment€on€causation€and€damages€is€not€upheld.Ð X ¨  ÐÌà  àMr.€Cohen€was€indicted€and€convicted€in€federal€court.€€The€Pointers€state€this€conviction€was€ð ðdue€to€amongÐ à 0  Ðother€things€fraud€on€various€portfolio€companies.ðð€€SBA€states€that€the€Pointers€ð ðcorrectly€and€frequently€point€out€inÐ ¤ô  Ðtheir€brief€that€Walter€Cohen€violated€federal€statutes€and€was€subsequently€found€guilty€of€criminal€conduct.ðð€€However,Ð h¸  ÐSBA€also€points€out€that€the€criminal€prosecution€was€related€to€various€companies€and,€therefore,€not€in€any€way€specificÐ ,|  Ðto€Pointer€Oil.€€The€SBAððs€director€of€the€office€of€liquidation€testified€that€€he€recalled€that€the€criminal€charges€includedÐ ð@  Ðfiling€false€statements€with€the€federal€government€and€taking€improper€control€of€portfolio€concerns€and€that€€Mr.€CohenÐ ´  Ðwas€convicted€of€filing,€and€conspiring€to€file,€false€statements. VÝ ƒ Þa$ÝÓ  ÓÔUSUS.,ÔÔ€ôÛìòXXÔà  àòòÚ  Ú9Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ‡ôÛìòòôÛìÔThe€Pointers€set€forth€five€legal€theories€in€the€Complaint.€Count€1€alleges€intentional€and€recklessÐ ° Ðmisrepresentation€and€fraud.€€They€assert€that€the€misrepresentations€of€Ô_ÔTECCÔ_Ô€and€Walter€Cohen€caused€them€to€enterÐ tÄ Ðinto€the€financing€transaction€with€Ô_ÔTECCÔ_Ô.€€Count€2€asserts€that€Ô_ÔTECCÔ_Ô€breached€the€duty€of€good€faith€and€fair€dealingÐ 8ˆ Ðowed€in€establishing€the€financing€agreement,€drafting€the€documents€and€in€subsequent€operation€of€and€dealing€withÐ üL ÐPointer€Oil.€€Count€3€asserts€that€Ô_ÔTECCÔ_Ô€committed€negligence€and€negligence€òòper€seóó€in€ignoring€federal€statutes€andÐ À Ðregulations€prohibiting€Ô_ÔTECCÔ_Ô€from€exercising€dominion€and€control€over€the€business€affairs€of€Pointer€Oil€.€€Count€4Ð „Ô Ðasserts€that€Ô_ÔTECCÔ_Ô€owed€Pointer€Oil€a€strict€fiduciary€duty€of€trust€and€confidence€and€that€Ô_ÔTECCÔ_Ô€breached€that€duty.€Ð H ˜ ÐFinally,€count€5€asserts€that€Ô_ÔTECCÔ_Ô€acted€with€malice€and€in€bad€faith€and€Ô_ÔtortiouslyÔ_Ô€interfered€with€Pointer€OilððsÐ  \ Ðcontractual€and€business€relations.Ô#†ôÛìòòôÛì#Ô åÝ ƒ Þa$ÝÓ  ÓÔUSUS.,ÔÔ€ôÛìòXXÔà  àòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔSuch€entities€are€licensed€under€Section€301(d)€of€the€Small€Business€Investment€Act. Ý ƒ Þa$ÝÓ  ÓÔUSUS.,ÔÔ€ôÛìòXXÔà  àòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔSBAððs€expert€stated€that€Pointer€Oil€paid€Ô_ÔTECCÔ_Ô€dividends€totaling€$19,834.34. ïÝ ƒ Þa$ÝÓ  ÓÔUSUS.,ÔÔ€ôÛìòXXÔà  àòòÚ  Ú10Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔPointer€Oil€severed€its€relationship€with€Ô_ÔTECCÔ_Ô€in€May€of€1990. SÝ ƒ Þa$ÝÓ  ÓÔUSUS.,ÔÔ€ôÛìòXXÔà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔMr.€Cohen€died€during€the€pendency€of€this€litigation€in€the€trial€court.€€His€estate€continued€to€participate,Ð ° Ðprincipally€adopting€the€positions€of€SBA€as€receiver€for€TECC. tÝ ƒ Þa$ÝÓ  ÓÔUSUS.,ÔÔ€ôÛìòXXÔà  àòòÚ  Ú14Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔWe€are€not€convinced€that€Mr.€Ô_ÔAtnipÔ_Ôððs€affidavit€provided€any€rebuttal€regarding€Mr.€Smithððs€conclusion€asÐ ° Ðto€the€cause€of€Pointer€Oilððs€demise,€the€underpricing€of€contracts,€had€the€court€admitted€and€considered€it.€€He€simplyÐ tÄ Ðopined€Pointer€Oil€had€a€volume€of€contracts€with€built„in€profit€margins€that€were€sufficient€to€make€it€profitable.€€He€Ð 8ˆ Ðdid€not€review€all€contracts.€€ ýÝ ƒ Þa$ÝÓ  ÓÔUSUS.,ÔÔ€ôÛìòXXÔà  àòòÚ  Ú6Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔThe€transcript€of€some€of€Mr.€Pointerððs€testimony€in€the€bankruptcy€proceedings€is€included€in€the€record. ×Ý ƒ Þa$ÝÓ  ÓÔUSUS.,ÔÔ€ôÛìòXXÔà  àòòÚ  Ú7Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔActivity€in€this€litigation€resumed€in€1998€after€an€agreed€order€was€filed€in€the€federal€receivership€action€toÐ ° Ðallow€this€case€to€go€forward.€€After€the€federal€courtððs€appointment€of€a€receiver,€all€pleadings€were€filed€by€SBA€asÐ tÄ Ðreceiver€for€Ô_ÔTECCÔ_Ô. Ý ƒ Þa$ÝÓ  ÓÔUSUS.,ÔÔ€ôÛìòXXÔà  àòòÚ  Ú11Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔMs.€Dayððs€deposition€was€€filed€in€support€of€the€motion€for€summary€judgment€and€is€included€in€the€record. =Ý ƒ Þa$ÝÓ  ÓÔUSUS.,ÔÔ€ôÛìòXXÔà  àòòÚ  Ú15Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔWe€question€whether€such€filing€could€amount€to€the€kind€of€conduct€which€would€support€liability€under€theÐ ° Ðcauses€of€action€alleged€by€the€Pointers.€€€ „Ý ƒ Þa$ÝÓ  ÓÔUSUS.,ÔÔ€ôÛìòXXÔà  àòòÚ  Ú13Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔWhen€asked€if€the€$500,000€per€month€growth€in€revenue€he€predicted€was€based€on€actual€review€of€contractsÐ ° Ðin€calculating€the€average€monthly€increase,€he€replied€he€had€not€sat€down€and€totaled€things€up€to€arrive€at€a€number.€Ð tÄ Ðð ðI€donððt€remember€exactly€how€I€came€to€that€number,€if€thatððs€something€that€Mr.€Pointer€told€me€or€„€„€I€do€know€IÐ 8ˆ Ðlooked€at€several€contracts€and€there€were€significant€volume€levels€for€those€contracts€and€it€was€reasonable,€in€myÐ üL Ðopinion,€to€believe€that€it€would€have€been€something€like€this.ðð€€When€asked€again€if€he€could€explain€how€he€came€upÐ À Ðwith€that€number,€he€replied,€ð ðNot€specifically,€no.ðð dÝ ƒiñ!ÝÓ  ÓÔUSUS.,ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ‡X2¨XXXÔÔ‡¼LM»XX2¨ÔÑ€,ÏÑà@ü ü ìàÔ#†X2¨X»¼LMh#ÔÔ‡îR\îXX2¨ÔIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@kk$ìàAT€NASHVILLEÔ#†X2¨XîîR\Í#ÔÔ‡¼LM»XX2¨ÔˆÐ Ö& Ðà@¶¶ìàApril€12,€2000€SessionˆÐ üL ÐÔ#†X2¨X»¼LMg#ÔÌò òÔ‡¼LM»XX2¨ÔÓ  ÓJOHN€L.€POINTER,€òòet€al.óó€òòóóv.€TENNESSEE€EQUITYÐ úJ ÐCAPITAL€CORPORATION€òòet€al.óóÔ#†X2¨X»¼LM#Ôó óÐ  ^ ÐÓ ÓÌà@Ç Ç ìàò òAppeal€from€the€Chancery€Court€for€Davidson€CountyˆÐ  ^ Ðà@/ / ìàNo.€90„1607„II(III)€€€€€€€Ellen€Hobbs€Lyle,€ChancellorˆÐ ú J ÐÌÌà@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<½` A߈Ð ¾  ÐÌà@K K ìàNo.€M1999„01934„Ô_ÔCOAÔ_Ô„R3„CV€„€Filed€December€18,€Ô_Ô2001Ô_ԈР¹  ÐÌßA€V) °°` dE<` AßÐ ‘á  Ðó óÌA€now€defunct€company€and€its€owner€sued€a€former€creditor€on€the€basis€the€creditorððs€control€andÐ ŒÜ Ðmanagement€of€the€company€damaged€it€so€that€it€was€no€longer€a€profitable€business,€causing€theÐ xÈ Ðstock€to€lose€value.€€The€trial€court€granted€summary€judgment€to€the€defendants€because€the€onlyÐ d´ Ðcompetent€evidence€established€that€the€company€was€never€profitable€and€that€no€action€by€theÐ P  Ðdefendants€caused€the€demise€of€the€company.€€We€affirm.Ð <Œ ÐÌò òà  àTenn.€R.€App.€P.€3€Appeal€as€of€Right;€Judgment€of€the€Chancery€CourtÐ d Ðà@©©ìàAffirmed€and€Remanded.ó óˆÐ P ÐÌòòPatricia€J.€Cottrell,óó€J.,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòBen€H.€Cantrell,€P.J.,€M.S.,óóÐ Ø( Ðand€òòWilliam€C.€Koch,€Jr.,€J.,óó€joined.Ð Ä ÐÌAdrian€H.€Altshuler,€Charles€G.€Blackard,€III,€Brentwood,€Tennessee,€for€the€appellants,€John€L.Ð œì ÐPointer,€Victoria€Pointer,€and€Pointer€Oil€Company,€Inc.Ð ˆØ ÐÌC.€Bennett€Harrison,€Jr.,€J.€Frank€Rudy,€Jr.,€Robert€M.€Garfinkle,€Nashville,€Tennessee,€for€theÐ `!°  Ðappellees,€Tennessee€Equity€Capital€Corporation€and€Walter€Cohen.€Ð L"œ! ÐÌà@66'ìàò òOPINIONó óˆÐ $$t# ÐÌòòóóÔ#†X2¨XXX2¨I#Ôà  àA€bankrupt€oil€brokerage€business€and€its€owners€sued€a€secured€creditor€for€fraud,€breachÐ ü%L!% Ðof€duty€of€good€faith€and€fair€dealing,€negligence,€breach€of€fiduciary€duty,€and€tortious€interferenceÐ è&8"& Ðwith€business€relations.€€The€relationship€between€the€plaintiff€business,€Pointer€Oil€Company,€Inc.Ð Ô'$#' Ð(ð ðPointer€Oilðð),€and€the€defendant€former€creditor€company,€Tennessee€Equity€Capital€CorporationÐ À($( Ð(ð ðÔ_ÔTECCÔ_Ôðð),€involved€more€than€a€simple€loan€arrangement.€€Plaintiffs,€Pointer€Oil€and€its€owners€Mr.Ð ¬)ü$) Ð&€Mrs.€Pointer,€claim€that€TECC€and€its€owner,€Walter€Cohen,׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€exercised€dominion€and€control€overÐ ˜*è%* ÐÑ,ÏÑâ âÑ8€2¨XXdìdÈ8Ñâ âÑ  ÑPointer€Oil,€excluding€its€sole€common€stockholder€from€management,€and€damaged€it€so€that€it€wasÐ ° Ðno€longer€a€profitable€business,€causing€the€stock€to€lose€value.€€Ð œì ÐÌà  àAll€the€damages€claimed€by€the€Pointers€arise€from€the€nonprofitability€and€eventual€demiseÐ tÄ Ðof€Pointer€Oil.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€The€trial€court€granted€summary€judgment€to€Mr.€Cohen€and€Ô_ÔTECCÔ_Ô€because€it€found€Ð `° Ðthe€only€competent€evidence€in€the€record€established€that€Pointer€Oil€was€never€profitable€andÐ L œ Ðbecause€there€was€no€proof€that€TECC€or€Mr.€Cohen€was€the€cause€of€Pointer€Oilððs€financialÐ 8 ˆ Ðproblems.Ð $ t ÐÌÔ‡X2¨XXX2¨Ôà@´´)ìàI.ˆÐ ü L  ÐÌÔ#†X2¨XXX2¨#Ôà  àOn€appeal,€summary€judgments€enjoy€no€presumption€of€correctness.€€òòCity€of€Tullahoma€v.Ð Ô$  ÐBedford€Countyóó,€938€S.W.2d€408,€412€(Tenn.€1997);€òòMcClung€v.€Delta€Square€Ltd.€Pððshipóó,€937Ð À  ÐS.W.2d€891,€894€(Tenn.€1996).€€Accordingly,€the€appellate€court€must€make€a€fresh€determinationÐ ¬ü  Ðof€whether€the€movant€has€met€the€requirements€of€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€56.€€€òòHunter€v.€Brownóó,€955Ð ˜è  ÐS.W.2d€49,€50-51€(Tenn.€1997);€òòMason€v.€Seatonóó,€942€S.W.2d€470,€472€(Tenn.€1997).€€We€reviewÐ „Ô  Ðsummary€judgment€evidence€in€the€light€most€favorable€to€the€nonmoving€party€and€must€also€drawÐ pÀ Ðall€reasonable€inferences€in€the€nonmoving€partyððs€favor.€òò€Robinson€v.€Omeróó,€952€S.W.2d€423,€426Ð \¬ Ð(Tenn.€1997);€òòMike€v.€Po€Group,€Inc.óó,€937€S.W.2d€790,€792€(Tenn.€1996).Ð H˜ ÐÌà  àSummary€judgment€is€appropriate€if€the€pleadings,€depositions,€answers€to€interrogatoriesÐ  p Ðand€admissions€on€file,€together€with€the€affidavits,€if€any,€show€there€is€no€genuine€issue€as€to€anyÐ  \ Ðmaterial€fact€and€the€moving€party€is€entitled€to€a€judgment€as€a€matter€of€law.€€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.Ð øH Ð56.04;€òòBain€v.€Wellsóó,€936€S.W.2d€618,€622€(Tenn.€1997);€òòCarvell€v.€Bottomsóó,€900€S.W.2d€23,€26Ð ä4 Ð(Tenn.€1995);€òòByrd€v.€Hallóó,€847€S.W.2d€208,€214€(Tenn.€1993).Ð Ð  ÐÌà  àThus,€we€will€affirm€the€grant€of€summary€judgment€only€if€€the€undisputed€facts€reasonablyÐ ¨ø Ðsupport€one€conclusion€-€that€Mr.€Cohen€and€TECC€were€entitled€to€a€judgment€as€a€matter€of€law.€Ð ”ä ÐòòMcCall€v.€Wilderóó,€913€S.W.2d€150,€153€(Tenn.€1995);€òòÔ_ÔCarvellÔ_Ôóó,€900€S.W.2d€at€26.€Ð €Ð ÐÌÓ  ÓII.Ð X ¨ ÐÓ`ÓÌà  àBecause€the€Pointers€assert€that€the€failure€of€Pointer€Oil€to€make€a€profit€and€to€remainÐ 0"€  Ðviable€was€due€to€actions€by€Mr.€Cohen€and€TECC,€it€is€necessary€to€review€the€history€of€thatÐ #l! Ðrelationship.€€Ô‡ X2¨XXX2¨ÔMr.€Pointer€formed€Pointer€Oil€Company€in€February€1987€with€the€intent€that€itÐ $X" Ðoperate€as€a€petroleum€brokerage€business.€€Mr.€Pointerððs€only€prior€experience€in€the€petroleumÐ ô$D # Ðbrokerage€business€was€a€16€week€unpaid€apprenticeship€with€a€Canadian€petroleum€company.Ð à%0!$ ÐÌà  àMr.€Pointer€contributed€no€personal€capital€to€the€business.Ô#†X2¨XX X2¨’#ÔÔ‡ X2¨XXX2¨Ô€He€spent€time€trying€to€obtainÐ ¸'#& Ðoutside€financing.€€After€numerous€unsuccessful€attempts€to€obtain€financing€elsewhere,€in€JulyÐ ° Ð1987,€€Mr.€Pointer€contacted€Defendant,€Walter€Cohen,€an€officer€of€Tennessee€Equity€CapitalÐ œì ÐCorporation,€a€federally€licensed€minority€enterprise€small€business€investment€company,׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€aboutÐ ˆØ Ðobtaining€financing€for€Pointer€Oil.€€Shortly€thereafter,€the€parties€entered€into€an€arrangement€whichÐ tÄ Ðprovided€Pointer€Oil€with€$250,000€which€TECC€financed€€with€the€Small€Business€AdministrationÐ `° Ð(SBA).€Ð L œ ÐÌà  àThe€arrangement€included€several€documents,€including€a€Security€Agreement,€FinancingÐ $ t ÐAgreement,€and€Put€and€Call€Agreement.€€In€return€for€the€$250,000,€TECC€received€1,000€non„Ð  ` Ðvoting€shares€of€Pointer€Oil€preferred€stock€(all€the€preferred€stock).€€Mr.€Pointer€owned€all€commonÐ ü L  Ðvoting€shares€in€the€corporation,€apparently€also€1000€shares.Ô#†X2¨XX X2¨g#ÔÔ‡ X2¨XXX2¨Ô€€Ô#†X2¨XX X2¨3!#ÔÔ‡ X2¨XXX2¨ÔÐ è 8  ÐÌà  àTECC€was€to€receive€a€quarterly€payment,€described€as€a€dividend,€at€a€fixed€rate€(14%).€€Ô#†X2¨XX X2¨w!#ÔÔ‡ X2¨XXX2¨ÔTheÐ À  Ðsecurity€agreement€authorized€TECC,€in€the€event€of€default€of€any€payment€or€dividend€or€returnÐ ¬ü  Ðof€capital€when€due€by€Pointer€Oil,€to€transfer€the€common€stock€into€its€own€name€and€exercise€allÐ ˜è  Ðrights€and€privileges€enjoyed€by€the€holder€of€record.€€Under€the€arrangement,€at€any€time€after€fiveÐ „Ô  Ðyears€and€one€day€from€execution€of€the€agreement,€TECC€could€put€its€preferred€stock€to€PointerÐ pÀ ÐOil,€which€would€be€obligated€to€repurchase,€or€redeem,€TECCððs€preferred€stock€at€its€purchase€priceÐ \¬ Ðplus€any€unpaid€dividends.€€TECC€was€also€given€the€right€to€purchase€49%€of€the€common€sharesÐ H˜ Ðof€Pointer€Oil€after€five€years€and€one€day€for€a€specified€purchase€price.Ð 4„ ÐÌà  àIn€July€1988,€Mr.€Pointer€began€obtaining€government€contracts€for€the€sale€of€petroleumÐ  \ Ðproducts€for€Pointer€Oil€through€a€bidding€process€which€encouraged€participation€by€minorityÐ øH Ðbusinesses.€€He€handled€purchases€from€suppliers€and€oversaw€delivery,€but€continued€to€work€full„Ð ä4 Ðtime€at€another€job€while€operating€Pointer€Oil.Ô#†X2¨XX X2¨5"#ÔÔ‡ X2¨XXX2¨Ô€TECC€provided€Pointer€Oil€office€space,€telephoneÐ Ð  Ðservice,€and€a€part„time€administrative€staff.€€TECC€staff€performed€administrative€functionsÐ ¼  Ðincluding€billing,€collecting,€and€scheduling€deliveries.€€Some€percentage€of€those€staff€membersððÐ ¨ø Ðsalaries€were€paid€with€funds€from€Pointer€Oilððs€operating€funds.€€€Ð ”ä ÐÌà  àThe€Pointers€allege€that€during€this€time€TECC,€through€Mr.€Cohen€began€to€exercise€moreÐ l¼ Ðmanagement€control€over€Pointer€Oil.€€Plaintiffs€describe€it€as€TECC€controlling€the€company.€€Mr.Ð X ¨ ÐPointer€testified€that€he€resented€TECCððs€control€over€his€company,€particularly€Mr.€Cohenððs€refusalÐ D!” Ðto€allow€Pointer€Oil€to€pay€him€a€salary.€€In€Mr.€Pointerððs€view,€Mr.€Cohen€was€preventing€him€fromÐ 0"€  Ðrunning€the€company€as€he€saw€fit.€€In€his€deposition,€Mr.€Pointer€states€he€was€denied€access€toÐ #l! Ðcompany€records,€including€information€on€its€financial€status,€and€that€some€checks€were€writtenÐ $X" Ðon€the€companyððs€account€without€his€approval.Ð ô$D # ÐÌà  àIn€the€late€fall€of€1998€Mr.€Pointerððs€dissatisfaction€with€Mr.€Cohen€led€him€to€contact€theÐ Ì&"% ÐSBA.€€At€least€partly€because€of€communications€and€advice€from€SBA,€Mr.€Pointer€signed€fewerÐ ¸'#& Ðdocuments€and€appeared€less€frequently€at€Pointer€Oilððs€offices,€essentially€decreasing€hisÐ ¤(ô#' Ðinvolvement.Ð )à$( Їà  àPointer€Oil€apparently€made€only€two€dividend€payments€to€Ô_ÔTECCÔ_Ô.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€On€April€24,€1990,Ð ° ÐTECC€demanded€payment€of€all€past€due€dividends.€Six€days€later,€TECC€declared€Pointer€Oil€€inÐ œì Ðdefault€and€took€control€of€Pointer€Oil,€paying€itself€$142,953€from€Pointer€Oil€to€redeem€its€stock.Ð ˆØ ÐÌà  àIn€early€May,€Mr.€Pointer€severed€ties€with€TECC,€ð ðtook€control,ðð€and€began€to€operateÐ `° ÐPointer€Oil€independently€of€Ô_ÔTECCÔ_Ô€or€Mr.€Cohen.€€On€May€2,€1990,€Mr.€and€Mrs.€Pointer€andÐ L œ ÐPointer€Oil€(collectively€the€Pointers)€filed€the€underlying€action,€alleging€fraud,€breach€of€the€dutyÐ 8 ˆ Ðof€good€faith€and€fair€dealing,€negligence,€breach€of€fiduciary€duty,€and€tortious€interference€withÐ $ t Ðbusiness€relations,€seeking€$1,000,000€in€compensatory€damages.׃T×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú5Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð  ` ÐÌà  àMr.€Pointer€operated€Pointer€Oil€for€another€eleven€months€without€assistance,€or€as€Mr.Ð è 8  ÐPointer€would€term€it,€interference,€from€Mr.€Cohen€or€TECC.€€Mr.€Pointer€began€to€pay€himself€aÐ Ô$  Ðsalary€and€gave€himself€two€raises.€€He€added€his€wife€and€brother€to€the€payroll€and€gavÔ#†X2¨XX X2¨M'#ÔÔ‡ X2¨XXX2¨Ôe€themÐ À  Ðbonuses.€€Pointer€Oil€incurred€costs€for€rent€and€telephone€services€previously€furnished€by€TECC.€Ð ¬ü  ÐPointer€Oil€purchased€an€automobile,€a€Cadillac.€€Prior€to€Pointer€Oilððs€disassociation€with€TECC,Ð ˜è  Ðoffice€expenses€averaged€less€than€$1500€per€month;€after€that€change,€they€averaged€$18,000€perÐ „Ô  Ðmonth.Ð pÀ ÐÌà  àPointer€Oil€filed€for€Chapter€7€bankruptcy€protection€in€May€1991.׃h×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú6Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€TECC€filed€anÐ H˜ Ðunsecured€claim€for€$178,286€in€the€bankruptcy€case€which€was€disallowed€in€June€1992.€€The€filingÐ 4„ Ðof€the€bankruptcy€petition€resulted€in€an€automatic€stay€of€proceedings€in€the€trial€court.Ð  p ÐÔ#†X2¨XX X2¨‡3#ÔÔ‡ X2¨XXX2¨ÔÌÓ  ÓA.€€The€Tax€Refund€IssueÐ øH ÐÓ37ÓÌà  àShortly€after€the€initiation€of€this€litigation,€TECC€filed€a€Third€Party€Complaint€against€theÐ Ð  ÐState€Commissioner€of€Revenue€claiming€an€interest€in€a€refund€for€petroleum€taxes€due€Pointer€OilÐ ¼  Ðand€being€held€by€the€State.€€The€State€responded€by€interpleading€the€petroleum€tax€refunds.€Ð ¨ø ÐPlaintiffs€filed€a€motion€for€disbursement€of€the€funds.€€TECC€responded€by€asserting€status€as€aÐ ”ä Ðsecured€creditor€and€its€concern€that€the€Pointers€would€dissipate€the€funds€if€disbursed€to€them.€Ð €Ð ÐTECC€asserted€the€court€should€allow€the€Commissioner€to€deposit€the€funds€with€the€court€subjectÐ l¼ Ðto€disbursal€after€trial.Ð X ¨ ÐÔ#†X2¨XX X2¨7#ÔÔ‡ X2¨XXX2¨ÔÌà  àIn€his€interpleader€complaint,€the€Commissioner€of€Revenue€stated€that€he€had€in€hisÐ 0"€  Ðpossession€ð ðfunds€made€payable€to€Pointer€Oil€Company,€Inc.,€in€the€amount€of€$50,141.41€forÐ #l! Ðrefunds€of€petroleum€taxes€.€.€.€as€claimed€on€its€Governmental€Refund€Claim€forms€dated€June€26,Ð $X" Ð1990€and€July€20,€1990.ðð€€The€Commissioner€expressed€his€belief€that,€based€on€past€experienceÐ ô$D # Ðwith€Pointer€Oil,€future€refund€claims€would€be€filed€and€future€refunds€would€likely€be€owing.€€Ð ° ÐÌà  àThe€interpleaded€funds€were€eventually€paid€by€the€State€to€the€bankruptcy€trustee.€€An€orderÐ ˆØ Ðwas€entered€herein€evidencing€agreement€by€the€parties€to€that€resolution.€€The€court€acknowledgedÐ tÄ Ðthe€automatic€stay,€but€allowed€the€Commissioner€to€make€such€payments,€with€agreement€of€theÐ `° Ðbankruptcy€trustee,€and€to€be€dismissed€from€the€proceedings€herein.€€By€the€time€the€order€wasÐ L œ Ðentered,€June€6,€1991,€the€total€amount€of€tax€refunds€due€Pointer€Oil€and€held€by€the€CommissionerÐ 8 ˆ Ðhad€reached€$388,003.85.€€Entitlement€to€the€funds€was€left€to€be€determined€in€the€appropriateÐ $ t Ðforum.Ð  ` ÐÌà  àThe€fact€that€Pointer€Oil€was€entitled€to€tax€refunds€from€the€State€is€relevant€to€an€argumentÐ è 8  Ðmade€by€the€Pointers€regarding€the€profitability€of€Pointer€Oil.€€Because€Pointer€Oil€sold€toÐ Ô$  Ðgovernmental€entities,€its€sales€were€apparently€subject€to€no€tax.€€Although€much€is€made€of€thisÐ À  Ðargument,€no€one€has€cited€us€to€the€appropriate€authority€explaining€the€basis€or€the€amount€for€thisÐ ¬ü  Ðtax€break.€€However,€because€the€State€affirmed€that€Pointer€Oil€was€entitled€to€rebate€of€taxes€it€paidÐ ˜è  Ðon€sales€to€governmental€entities,€we€conclude€such€tax€advantage€existed€and€was€realized€throughÐ „Ô  Ðapplication€for€rebate€of€taxes€already€paid.Ð pÀ ÐÌÓ  ÓB.€€The€Consolidated€CaseÐ H˜ ÐÌÓCÓà  àIn€March€1991,€Sprague€Energy€Company,€one€of€Pointer€Oilððs€bulk€petroleum€suppliers,Ð  p Ðsued€Pointer€Oil,€Mr.€and€Mrs.€Pointer,€TECC,€and€the€Commissioner€for€Revenue€for€the€State€ofÐ  \ ÐTennessee.€€The€complaint€alleged€that€Pointer€Oil€had€not€paid€for€$692,288€in€oil€it€purchased€onÐ øH Ðopen€account€under€a€security€agreement€with€Sprague€Energy€and€sold€to€the€state.€€The€complaintÐ ä4 Ðalleged€that€the€open€account€arrangement€began€in€February€of€1990€and€that€Pointer€Oil€began€toÐ Ð  Ðbecome€delinquent€in€its€payments€during€the€middle€part€of€1990.€€In€October€1990,€Sprague€andÐ ¼  ÐPointer€entered€into€an€Assignment€and€Security€Agreement€in€which€Pointer€Oil€assigned,€asÐ ¨ø Ðsecurity€collateral,€all€its€rights€in€its€present€and€future€accounts€receivable€as€well€as€all€paymentsÐ ”ä Ðdue€or€to€become€due.€€Sprague€alleged€that€the€delinquencies€continued€to€mount,€however,€andÐ €Ð ÐSprague€ceased€sales€to€Pointer€Oil€in€January€of€1991.€€The€complaint€alleged€that€as€of€March€11,Ð l¼ Ð1991,€Pointer€Oil€owed€Sprague€Energy€$692,288.68.€€Ð X ¨ ÐÌà  àSprague€claimed€a€superior€interest€to€any€tax€refunds€being€held€by€the€state€and€asked€thatÐ 0"€  Ðthe€Commissioner€of€Revenue€be€enjoined€from€distributing€any€refunds€to€either€Pointer€Oil€orÐ #l! ÐÔ_ÔTECCÔ_Ô€until€Spragueððs€rights€were€determined.€€Spragueððs€action€was€consolidated€with€the€actionÐ $X" Ðinitiated€by€the€Pointers€in€May€1990.€€The€order€allowing€the€Commissioner€to€pay€accumulatedÐ ô$D # Ðtax€refunds€to€the€bankruptcy€trustee€was€approved€by€counsel€for€Sprague.Ð à%0!$ ÐÔ#†X2¨XX X2¨œ:#ÔÔ‡ X2¨XXX2¨ÔÌÓ  ÓC.€The€SBA€ReceivershipÐ ¸'#& ÐÓÙJÓÌà  àAs€the€relations€between€the€parties€deteriorated€in€the€fall€of€1989,€Mr.€Pointer€contactedÐ )à$( Ðthe€SBA€and€provided€them€with€financial€documents€from€Pointer€Oil,€which€eventually€led€to€aÐ |*Ì%) Ðfederal€receivership€action€against€TECC.€€In€March€of€1992,€the€U.S.€District€Court€for€the€MiddleÐ h+¸&* ÐDistrict€of€Tennessee€entered€an€order€taking€exclusive€jurisdiction€of€TECC,€appointing€the€SBAÐ ° Ðas€receiver€of€TECC,€dismissed€officers€of€Ô_ÔTECCÔ_Ô,€enjoining€all€parties€to€any€civil€actions€involvingÐ œì ÐTECC€from€taking€further€action€in€any€such€proceeding,€and€staying€all€other€civil€legal€proceedingsÐ ˆØ Ðinvolving€TECC€or€its€assets.Ô_Ô׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú7Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ô_ÔÐ tÄ ÐÔ#†X2¨XX X2¨¹J#ÔÔ‡ X2¨XXX2¨ÔÌà  àThe€parties€herein€agree€that€the€receivership€action€arose€at€least€partly€because€Ô_ÔTECCÔ_ÔððsÐ L œ Ðinvolvement€in€Pointer€Oil€(and€apparently€other€companies)€violated€SBA€regulations.€€The€PointersÐ 8 ˆ Ðcite€13€C.F.R.€107.801,€Restricted€Activities:€Control€of€Small€Concern,€as€prohibiting€entitiesÐ $ t Ðlicensed€as€minority€enterprise€small€business€investment€companies€from€assuming€control€overÐ  ` Ðsmall€businesses€by€ð ðmanagement€agreements,€voting€trusts,€majority€representation€on€the€boardÐ ü L  Ðof€directors€or€otherwise.ðð€€They€assert€the€receivership€action€resulted€from€violation€of€variousÐ è 8  Ðfederal€regulations€including€providing€funds€to€small€business€concerns€controlled€by€TECC.€€Ô#†X2¨XX X2¨ÛN#ÔSBAÐ Ô$  Ðas€receiver€for€TECC€acknowledges€that€ð ðTECCððs€exercise€of€control€violated€SBA€regulations€andÐ À  Ðwas€one€of€the€reasons€TECC€was€put€in€a€Federal€Receivership.ððÔ‡ X2¨XXX2¨Ô€×ƒÜ×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú8Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð ¬ü  ÐÌÓ  ÓD.€The€BankruptcyÔ#†X2¨XX X2¨@S#ÔÔ‡ X2¨XXX2¨ÔÐ „Ô  ÐÓÉSÓÌà  àAs€noted€above,€Pointer€Oil€filed€a€Chapter€7€petition€in€Bankruptcy€Court.€€Ô_ÔTECCÔ_Ô€filed€anÐ \¬ Ðunsecured€claim€for€$178,286.38.€€Sprague€Energy€and€the€trustee€objected€to€the€claim.€€TheÐ H˜ Ðbankruptcy€court€was€called€upon€to€determine€priority€among€creditors€to€the€remaining€assets€ofÐ 4„ ÐPointer€Oil,€primarily€the€tax€refund€from€the€state.€€The€court€held€that€Ô_ÔTECCÔ_Ôððs€actions€in€payingÐ  p Ðitself€$142,953.11€from€Pointer€Oil€funds€on€May€3,€1990,€could€have€amounted€to€a€preferentialÐ  \ Ðtransfer€or€a€fraudulent€conveyance.€€The€court€held€that€Ô_ÔTECCÔ_Ôððs€taking€of€the€funds€ahead€of€otherÐ øH Ðunsecured€creditors€was€inappropriate€and€disallowed€TECCððs€claim.€€In€addition,€the€court€foundÐ ° Ðð ðThe€evidence€presented€indicates€that€Pointer€Oil€Company€was€insolvent€or€was€rendered€insolventÐ œì Ðin€May€of€1990.ððÐ ˆØ ÐÔ#†X2¨XX X2¨ T#ÔÔ‡X2¨XXX2¨ÔÌà@vv(ìàIII.ˆÐ `° ÐÌà  àPointer€Oil€claims€that€TECC€harmfully€exercised€dominion€and€control€over€Pointer€Oil€andÐ 8 ˆ Ðexcluded€management,€i.e.,€the€president€and€sole€common€shareholder,€Mr.€Pointer,€thereby€causingÐ $ t Ðirreparable€damage€to€Pointer€Oil€and€causing€the€stock€to€lose€its€value.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú9Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€In€response,€€SBA€asÐ  ` Ðreceiver€for€TECC€claims€in€the€motion€for€summary€judgment€that€Pointer€Oil€can€show€nothingÐ ü L  Ðthat€TECC€did€to€harm€the€financial€condition€of€Pointer€Oil€and€that€recovery€of€damages€for€lostÐ è 8  Ðvalue€to€stock€is€impermissible€because€Pointer€Oil€is€unable€to€prove€profitability.€Ð Ô$  ÐÌà  àIn€support€of€the€motion€for€summary€judgment,€receiver€SBA€provided,€among€other€filings,Ð ¬ü  Ðaffidavits€of€an€expert€witnesses,€Mr.€H.€David€Smith,€a€CPA€with€experience€in€evaluation€ofÐ ˜è  Ðclosely€held€businesses.€€Mr.€Smith€examined€Pointer€Oilððs€records€of€actual€operations.€€HeÐ „Ô  Ðreviewed€specific€petroleum€sales€including€the€cost€of€the€product,€the€amount€billed,€the€taxesÐ pÀ Ðinvolved€and€the€freight.€€Mr.€Smith€opined€that€it€was€the€underpricing€of€sales€contracts,€not€anyÐ \¬ Ðaction€by€Mr.€Cohen€or€TECC,€which€caused€Pointer€Oilððs€demise.Ð H˜ ÐÌà  àThe€trial€court€in€this€case€analyzed€the€expert€evidence€and€specifically€found€that€Mr.Ð  p ÐSmithððs€opinion€was€based€on€review€of€actual€revenue€and€expenditures€of€Pointer€Oil€and€found:Ð  \ ÐÔ#†X2¨XXX2¨·X#ÔÔ‡X2¨XXX2¨Ôà@ìì*ìàˆÌà8  àIn€Mr.€Smithððs€affidavit€he€carefully€goes€through€the€history€and€financialÐ ä4 Ðtransactions€of€Ô_ÔPOCÔ_Ô€to€trace€its€demise.€€He€illustrates€that€Ô_ÔPOCÔ_Ô€suffered€operatingÐ Ð  Ðlosses€in€each€of€its€three€fiscal€years€for€a€total€of€$106,111.52€during€the€period€inÐ ¼  Ðwhich€the€administration€was€under€TECC.€€Mr.€Smith€reviews€various€schedulesÐ ¨ø Ðwhich€reflect€that€the€pricing€Mr.€Pointer€came€up€with€on€€product€was€insufficient,Ð ”ä Ðsometimes€not€even€enough€to€cover€the€freight€charges,€let€alone€other€expenses€andÐ €Ð Ðoverhead.€€Ô_ÔPOCÔ_Ô€could€only€make€money€if€it€sold€petroleum€products€for€a€priceÐ l¼ Ðhigher€than€the€costs€it€had€to€pay€its€supplier€plus€delivery€and€administrative€costs.€Ð X ¨ ÐFluctuation€in€the€price€of€oil€did€not€affect€the€margin€of€the€contracts€because€allÐ D!” Ðbids€were€based€upon€a€specific€markup€over€the€purchase€price.€€It€is€undisputed€thatÐ 0"€  ÐMr.€Pointer€was€responsible€for€stating€prices€through€the€bidding€process.Ð#l!Ð Ð  Їà8  àAdditionally,€Mr.€Smithððs€affidavit€establishes€that€after€Mr.€Pointer€took€over€theÐ ° Ðcompany€following€his€falling€out€with€TECC€the€affairs€of€Ô_ÔPOCÔ_Ô€became€muchÐ œì Ðworse€and€expenses€increased€because€Mr.€Pointer€changed€the€TECC€policy€of€notÐ ˆØ Ðcompensating€Mr.€Pointer€or€his€wife,€and€paid€himself€and€his€wife€and€her€brother.€Ð tÄ ÐMr.€Pointer€also€awarded€his€wife€and€brother€a€bonus.€Mr.€Smith€concludes€that€theÐ `° Ðadministrative€expenses€increased€dramatically€after€Mr.€Pointer€took€over€andÐ L œ Ðmoved€the€operation€from€TECCððs€office€during€the€11€months€that€Ô_ÔPOCÔ_Ô€had€itsÐ 8 ˆ Ðoffice€from€TECC€and€under€Mr.€Pointerððs€exclusive€control,€the€office€expensesÐ $ t Ðaveraged€$18,000.00€per€month€or€about€20%€of€gross€sales.Ð `Ð Ð  ÐÌà  àThe€conclusion€to€be€reached€from€Mr.€Smithððs€testimony€is€that€Pointer€Oil€was€neverÐ è 8  Ðprofitable€and€that€its€financial€failing€was€due€to€underpricing€of€contracts,€a€task€performedÐ Ô$  Ðexclusively€by€Mr.€Pointer.€€In€fact,€Mr.€Smith€opined€that€Mr.€Pointer€was€principally€responsibleÐ À  Ðfor€the€losses€suffered.Ð ¬ü  ÐÌà  àThe€trial€court€has€aptly€summarized€Mr.€Smithððs€affidavit.€€Mr.€Smith€testified€that€he€hadÐ „Ô  Ðbeen€retained€by€SBA€as€receiver€for€TECC€to€analyze€a€€claim€filed€in€the€receivership€action€byÐ pÀ Ðthe€Pointers.€€He€described€that€claim€as€based€upon€their€assertion€that€TECC€and€Mr.€CohenÐ \¬ Ðð ðcaused€the€companyððs€financial€demise€and€the€resulting€worthlessness€of€their€stock.ðð€€His€task€wasÐ H˜ Ðdefined€as€determining€what€value€Pointer€Oil€stock€had€and€whether€TECC€did€anything€to€causeÐ 4„ Ðdevaluation€of€that€stock.Ð  p ÐÌà  àHe€examined€all€the€corporate€records€of€Pointer€Oil€that€had€been€located€by€SBA€andÐ øH Ðaverred€that,€to€his€knowledge,€no€other€records€existed.€€Because€no€financial€statements€existed,Ð ä4 Ðhe€prepared€cash€basis€earnings€statements€for€the€relevant€periods€using€bank€statements€andÐ Ð  Ðcanceled€checks.€On€the€basis€of€this€work,€he€calculated€that€in€its€first€three€fiscal€years,€or€partsÐ ¼  Ðthereof€(from€August€1,€1988,€to€April€30,€1990,€the€time€when€TECC€was€involved),׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú10Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€Pointer€OilÐ ¨ø Ðsuffered€operating€losses€totaling€$106,111.52.€€In€addition€to€these€operating€losses,€Pointer€Oil€paidÐ ”ä ÐTECC€$19,834.34€in€dividends.€€These€losses€and€dividends€were€financed€with€$129,659.88€drawnÐ €Ð Ðfrom€the€investment€account€created€by€the€financing€from€TECC.Ð l¼ ÐÌà  àMr.€Smith€also€prepared€a€cash€basis€earnings€statement€for€the€period€of€June€1,€1990€toÐ D!” ÐApril€17,€1991€(after€TECC€was€no€longer€involved).€€The€statement€reflected€a€cash€loss€ofÐ 0"€  Ðapproximately€$29,000.€€ð ðAdditionally,€Mr.€Pointer€filed€schedules€with€the€bankruptcy€court€inÐ #l! Ðconnection€with€Ô_ÔPOCÔ_Ôððs€bankruptcy€that€Ô_ÔPOCÔ_Ô€owed€its€supplier,€Sprague€Energy,€$692,680€and€wasÐ $X" Ðowed€$407,000€by€the€State€of€Tennessee€for€tax€refunds€at€the€beginning€of€May€1991.ðð€€Mr.€SmithÐ ô$D # Ðconcluded€that€if€those€figures€were€included,€Pointer€Oil€suffered€a€loss€of€$314,000€for€this€period.Ð à%0!$ ÐÌà  àThe€following€portion€of€Mr.€Smithððs€affidavit€explains€his€underpricing€conclusion:Ð ¸'#& ÐÌà8  àÔ_ÔPOCÔ_Ô€suffered€losses€over€the€time€of€its€existence€totaling€approximately€$420,000,Ð )à$( Ðwhich€were€principally€financed€by€TECCððs€investment€of€approximately€$110,000,Ð ° Ðnet€of€the€dividends€it€got€back,€and€the€$285,000€insolvency€it€posted€when€it€filedÐ œì Ðbankruptcy€in€May€of€1991.€€The€losses€in€my€opinion€are€the€result€of€underpricingÐ ˆØ Ðsales.€€During€the€period€from€August€1988€through€April€1990,€when€Ô_ÔPOCÔ_Ô€wasÐ tÄ Ðadministered€out€of€TECCððs€offices€and€purportedly€under€Walter€Cohenððs€control,Ð `° Ðthe€monthly€office€expenses€averaged€less€than€$1500.€€Accordingly,€the€lossesÐ L œ Ðsuffered€during€that€period€had€to€be€in€the€gross€margins.€€During€the€approximatelyÐ 8 ˆ Ðten€months€that€Ô_ÔPOCÔ_Ô€had€its€offices€separate€from€TECC€and€under€Mr.€PointerððsÐ $ t Ðcontrol,€the€monthly€office€expenses€averaged€about€$18,000€and€amounted€toÐ  ` Ðapproximately€20%€of€gross€sales.€€The€costs€of€the€products€plus€delivery€exceededÐ ü L  Ðthe€sales€prices€collected€during€this€period,€resulting€in€substantial€losses.Ðè 8 Ð Ð  ÐÌà  àMr.€Smith€also€examined€the€deposition€of€Terry€Day€who€worked€in€the€offices€of€TECCÐ À  Ðand€handled€the€day€to€day€administrative€duties€of€Pointer€Oil€and€the€attached€schedules€reflectingÐ ¬ü  Ðdetails€of€specific€sales,€including€cost€of€product,€amount€billed,€taxes€involved,€and€sometimesÐ ˜è  Ðfreight€charges.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú11Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€His€review€of€those€schedules€and€Ms.€Dayððs€testimony€reaffirmed€his€opinion€thatÐ „Ô  Ðthe€significant€losses€suffered€by€Pointer€Oil€were€the€result€of€underpricing€of€the€product€it€wasÐ pÀ Ðselling.Ð \¬ ÐÌà  àIt€is€undisputed€that€Mr.€Pointer€established€the€price€in€contracts€for€the€sale€of€petroleumÐ 4„ Ðto€Pointer€Oilððs€customers.€€The€contracts€were€cost„plus€contracts,€meaning€that€Pointer€Oil€chargedÐ  p Ðits€customers€a€specified€markup€over€the€price€Pointer€Oil€paid€to€purchase€the€petroleum€fromÐ  \ Ðsuppliers.€€As€the€trial€court€pointed€out,€the€markup€needed€to€be€calculated€to€cover€delivery€andÐ øH Ðother€charges€as€well€as€Pointer€Oilððs€overhead€before€any€profit€would€be€realized.Ô#†X2¨XXX2¨Ð_#ÔÔ‡X2¨XXX2¨ÔÐ ä4 ÐÌÓ  ÓIV.Ð ¼  ÐÓû~ÓÌÔ#†X2¨XXX2¨Æ~#Ôà  àWhen€faced€with€a€motion€for€summary€judgment,€Pointer€Oil€had€the€burden€of€producingÐ ”ä Ðevidence€which€contradicted€the€allegations€asserted€by€TECC€in€the€motion.€€òòByrdóó,€847€S.W.2d€atÐ €Ð Ð215.€€Pointer€Oil€was€required€to€set€forth€specific€facts,€not€legal€conclusions,€by€using€affidavitsÐ l¼ Ðor€discovery€materials€that€established€there€were€disputed€issues€that€are€material€to€the€resolutionÐ X ¨ Ðof€the€case.€€òòIdóó.€€A€disputed€fact€is€material€for€summary€judgment€purposes€if€it€must€be€decided€inÐ D!” Ðorder€to€resolve€a€substantive€claim€or€defense€underlying€the€summary€judgment€motion.€€òòIdóó.Ð 0"€  ÐÔ‡X2¨XXX2¨ÔÌà  àIn€opposing€the€motion€for€summary€judgment,€the€Pointers€presented€their€own€expertÐ $X" Ðtestimony€regarding€the€damage€that€TECC€caused€to€Pointer€Oil,€€Mr.€Gary€L.€Ô_ÔAtnipÔ_Ô,€a€CPA€withÐ ô$D # Ðeighteen€years€of€experience€in€general€accounting,€advisory€services,€computer€consulting€andÐ à%0!$ Ðlitigation€support.€€Essentially,€he€attempted€to€estimate€the€value€of€the€future€profitability€of€PointerÐ Ì&"% ÐOil€or€the€profit€that€Pointer€Oil€should€have€earned.€€He€opined€that€the€amount€of€loss€of€futureÐ ¸'#& Ðprofits,€from€1990€to€1996,€was€$3.4€million€(before€taxes).€€He€opined€that€Pointer€Oil€hadÐ ¤(ô#' Ðexperienced€$500,000€per€month€in€contract€revenue€growth€during€the€six€months€prior€to€itsÐ )à$( Ðseparation€from€Ô_ÔTECCÔ_Ô,€and€was,€therefore,€capable€of€profitability.€€€He€based€his€opinion,€at€leastÐ ° Ðin€part,€upon€the€guarantee€of€a€gross€profit€margin€in€each€sale€because€of€the€cost„plus€nature€ofÐ œì Ðthe€contracts.€€€Ð ˆØ ÐÌà  àThe€trial€court€determined€that€Mr.€Atnipððs€affidavit€did€not€meet€the€requirement€ofÐ `° Ðcompetent,€admissible€evidence€to€rebut€the€evidence€presented€by€the€party€moving€for€summaryÐ L œ Ðjudgment.€€Regarding€Mr.€Atnipððs€testimony,€the€court€found:Ð 8 ˆ ÐÌÔ#†X2¨XXX2¨2‚#ÔÔ‡X2¨XXX2¨Ôà8  àThe€problem€with€Mr.€Atnipððs€affidavit€is€that€it€is€not€based€upon€a€review€Ô#†X2¨XXX2¨Dˆ#ÔÔ‡X2¨XXX2¨Ôof€theÐ  ` Ðactual€transactions€of€Ô_ÔPOCÔ_Ô.€€Mr.€Atnip€admitted€in€his€deposition€that€he€was€notÐ ü L  Ðfamiliar€with€the€actual€operating€results€of€Ô_ÔPOCÔ_Ô€for€1990,€that€he€had€not€reviewedÐ è 8  Ðcash€flow€or€performed€a€cash€flow€analysis€of€Ô_ÔPOCÔ_Ô.€€Additionally,€Mr.€AtnipÐ Ô$  Ðassumed€a€gross€profit€margin€of€3%€but€throughout€its€entire€existence€Ô_ÔPOCÔ_Ô€neverÐ À  Ðattained€a€gross€profit€margin€of€3%.€€Mr.€Atnipððs€opinion€also€fails€to€take€intoÐ ¬ü  Ðaccount€possible€loss€of€customers€in€spite€of€the€fact€that€customers,Ô#†X2¨XXX2¨âˆ#ÔÔ‡X2¨XXX2¨Ôà8@”Ð Ð àÔ#†X2¨XXX2¨Œ#ÔÔ‡X2¨XXX2¨Ô€such€as€the€State€of€Tennessee,€the€companyððs€single€largest€account,€were€lost€in€1990.€€Mr.€AtnipÐ ˜è  Ðacknowledges€in€his€deposition€that€he€was€unaware€that€the€State€of€Tennessee€had€terminatedÐ „Ô  ÐÔ_ÔPOCÔ_Ôððs€contract€due€to€nonperformance€and€admitted€that€the€loss€of€this€contract€would€drasticallyÐ pÀ Ðalter€his€projections€for€future€revenues.€€Mr.€Atnip€opined€that€Ô_ÔPOCÔ_Ô€experienced€approximatelyÐ \¬ Ð$500,000.00€in€annual€contract€revenue€growth€per€month€during€the€last€six€months€Ô_ÔPOCÔ_Ô€operatedÐ H˜ Ðout€of€the€offices€of€TECC.€€Mr.€Atnip,€however,€could€notÔ#†X2¨XXX2¨\Œ#Ô€Ô‡X2¨XXX2¨Ôremember€how€he€arrived€at€this€number.€Ð 4„ ÐMr.€Smithððs€review€of€the€actual€cash€revenue€of€the€company€does€not€bear€out€this€assumption.€Ð  p ÐMoreover,€Mr.€Atnip€admitted€he€had€not€analyzed€Mr.€Smithððs€analysis€and€had€no€idea€whetherÐ  \ Ðit€was€accurate€or€not.€€Mr.€Atnip€based€his€opinions€on€projected€expenses€and€on€projectedÐ øH Ðrevenue.€€Mr.€Smith,€however,€based€his€analysis€on€actual€aggregate€cash€expenditures€of€theÐ ä4 Ðcompany.Ô#†X2¨XXX2¨‰#ÔÔ‡X2¨XXX2¨ÔÐ Ð  ÐÌà  àOn€appeal,€the€Pointers€object€to€the€trial€courtððs€exclusion€of€Mr.€Atnipððs€testimony.€Ð ¨ø ÐHowever,€we€agree€with€the€trial€court€and€find€that€the€exclusion€was€in€accordance€with€the€lawÐ ”ä Ðof€expert€testimony.Ð €Ð ÐÌà  àAdmissibility,€qualifications,€relevancy€and€competency€of€expert€testimony€are€questionsÐ X ¨ Ðleft€to€the€trial€judge€and€will€not€be€disturbed€unless€there€is€a€showing€the€decision€is€arbitrary€orÐ D!” Ðan€abuse€of€discretion.€€òòÔ_ÔMcDanielÔ_Ô€v.€Ô_ÔCSXÔ_Ô€Transport,€Inc.óó,€955€S.W.2d€257,€263€(Tenn.€1997)€(citingòòÐ 0"€  ÐState€v.€Ballardóó,€855€S.W.2d€557,€562€(Tenn.€1993));€òòState€v.€Begleyóó,€956€S.W.2d€471,€475€(Tenn.Ð #l! Ð1997);€òòState€of€Tennessee€ex€rel.€Depððt€of€Transp.,€Bureau€of€Highways€v.€Brevardóó,€545€S.W.2d€431,Ð $X" Ð436„37€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1976).Ô#†X2¨XXX2¨à‘#ÔÐ ô$D # ÐÌà  àIt€is€the€duty€of€a€trial€court€to€determine€as€gatekeeper€whether€or€not€opinion€evidence€willÐ Ì&"% Ðsubstantially€assist€the€trier€of€fact€and€whether€or€not€the€underlying€opinion€is€trustworthy.€Ð ¸'#& ÐòòÔ_ÔMcDanielÔ_Ôóó,€955€S.W.2d€at€265.€€An€expertððs€opinion€cannot€be€based€on€speculation,€but€must€beÐ ¤(ô#' Ðbased€on€reliable€data€and€relevant€methods€and€processes.€€òòIdóó.€€Specifically,€ð ð[t]his€gatekeeping€roleÐ )à$( Ð.€.€.€is€to€assure€that€expertððs€opinions€are€based€on€relevant€scientific€methods,€processes,€and€data,Ð |*Ì%) Ðand€not€on€mere€speculation,€and€that€they€apply€to€the€facts€in€issue.ðð€€òòIdóó.€(quoting€òòJoiner€v.€GeneralÐ h+¸&* ÐElec.€Co.óó,€78€F.3d€524,€530€(11th€Cir.€1996)).Ð ° ÐÌà  àIn€making€this€determination,€the€court€relies€on€Tennessee€Rules€of€Evidence€702€and€703,Ð ˆØ Ðwhich€€govern€admissibility€of€expert€testimony.€€Rule€702€allows€opinion€testimony€from€a€qualifiedÐ tÄ Ðexpert€if€ð ðscientific,€technical,€or€other€specialized€knowledge€will€substantially€assist€the€trier€of€factÐ `° Ðto€understand€the€evidence€or€to€determine€a€fact€in€issue.ðð€€€Tennessee€departs€from€the€federal€ruleÐ L œ Ðin€that€it€requires€the€information€ð ðsubstantiallyðð€assist€the€trier€of€fact,€thereby€creating€a€greaterÐ 8 ˆ Ðburden€on€the€proponent€of€the€expert€opinion.€€Additionally,€Rule€703€states€in€pertinent€part,€ð ðTheÐ $ t Ðcourt€shall€disallow€testimony€in€the€form€of€an€opinion€or€inference€if€the€underlying€facts€or€dataÐ  ` Ðindicate€lack€of€trustworthiness.ðð€Ð ü L  ÐÌà  àAdditionally,€when€calculating€damages,€expert€conclusions€cannot€be€grounded€inÐ Ô$  Ðspeculation€or€guessing.€€òòCecil€Corley€Motor€Co.,€Inc.€v.€General€Motors€Corp.óó,€380€F.€Supp.€819,Ð À  Ð854„55€(M.D.€Tenn.€1974).€€For€example,€an€accountantððs€calculations€must€be€based€on€theories€andÐ ¬ü  Ðdata€that€have€a€sound€basis€in€fact€and€reason.€€òòIdóó.€at€855.€€€No€matter€what€type€of€evidence€is€atÐ ˜è  Ðissue,€the€evidence€should€be€derived€from€ð ðrelevant€.€.€.€methods,€processes,€and€data,€and€not€uponÐ „Ô  Ðan€expertððs€mere€speculation.ððòòóó€òòÔ_ÔMcDanielÔ_Ôóó,€955€S.W.2d€at€265.Ð pÀ ÐÌà  àMr.€Atnip€admitted€in€his€deposition€that€his€conclusions€were€based€primarily€on€discussionsÐ H˜ Ðwith€Mr.€Pointer,€some€cancelled€checks€and€isolated€contracts.€€From€this,€he€did€a€cash€flowÐ 4„ Ðapproach€to€value€the€business.€€Without€being€familiar€with€the€actual€operating€receipts€orÐ  p Ðexpenditures€of€Pointer€Oil,€or€the€extent€of€its€contracts,€Mr.€Ô_ÔAtnipÔ_Ô€also€generated€a€ProformaÐ  \ ÐIncome€Statement€predicting€that€Pointer€Oil€would€generate€$8,750,000€in€gross€revenue€and€earnÐ øH Ð$265,000€in€profit€for€1990.€€However,€Mr.€Atnip€failed€to€consider€that€Pointer€Oil€actually€onlyÐ ä4 Ðhad€$1,261,208€in€gross€revenues€for€1990.€€Additionally,€Mr.€Atnip€admitted€that€he€was€notÐ Ð  Ðfamiliar€with€the€operating€costs€of€the€company,€failed€to€conduct€a€cash€flow€analysis€for€theÐ ¼  Ðcompany€based€on€actual€transactions€made,€was€unaware€of€the€full€extent€of€contracts€that€existedÐ ¨ø Ðand€that€the€largest€contract,€with€the€State€of€Tennessee,€had€been€terminated.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú12Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€€He€was€unable€toÐ ”ä Ðrecall€where€or€how€he€had€come€up€with€the€calculations€of€future€profits€he€had€predicted.׃!T×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú13Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€Ð €Ð ÐÌà  àThe€trial€courtððs€decision€to€exclude€Mr.€Atnipððs€testimony€and€opinion€of€profitability€wasÐ X ¨ Ðneither€arbitrary€nor€an€abuse€of€discretion.€€To€the€contrary,€it€was€based€on€well„settled€principlesÐ D!” Ðand€on€Mr.€Atnipððs€own€statements.€€Therefore,€Mr.€Smithððs€testimony€and€his€opinion€that€theÐ 0"€  Ðfinancial€demise€and€lack€of€profitability€of€Pointer€Oil€were€not€caused€by€any€conduct€of€TECCÐ #l! Ðor€Mr.€Cohen€remain€Ô_ÔunrebuttedÔ_Ô€by€expert€opinion.Ð $X" Їà  àà@‹‹)ìàV.ˆÐ ° ÐÌà  àWithout€Mr.€Ô_ÔAtnipÔ_Ôððs€testimony,€the€Pointers€must€have€otherwise€rebutted€evidence€presentedÐ ˆØ Ðin€support€of€the€motion€for€summary€judgment,€to€the€extent€that€a€genuine€issue€of€fact€remainsÐ tÄ Ðthat€is€material€to€whether€Ô_ÔTECCÔ_Ô€and€Mr.€Cohen€are€entitled€to€judgment€as€a€matter€of€law.Ô_Ô׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú14Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ô_Ô€€TheÐ `° Ðissue€of€whether€Ô_ÔTECCÔ_Ôððs€conduct€caused€Pointer€Oilððs€financial€collapse€is€certainly€material.€€Ð L œ ÐÌà  àIn€opposing€summary€judgment,€the€Pointers€did€not€dispute€the€specific€examples€ofÐ $ t Ðunderpricing€cited€by€Mr.€Smith€and€Ms.€Day;€they€presented€no€evidence€contradicting€theÐ  ` Ðinformation.€€Ms.€Day€testified€about€specific€contracts€and€particularly€pointed€out€the€contract€withÐ ü L  Ðthe€State€of€Tennessee€as€one€in€which€losses€necessarily€occurred€because€the€markup€over€costÐ è 8  Ðfrom€suppliers€was€so€small€it€did€not€cover€transportation€costs.€€That€situation€was€particularlyÐ Ô$  Ðdamaging€because€of€the€volume€involved.€€Again,€the€Pointers€have€provided€no€rebuttal€to€thisÐ À  Ðtestimony.Ð ¬ü  ÐÌà  àIn€addition€to€Mr.€Smithððs€conclusion€that€Pointer€Oil€was€never€profitable,€the€SBAððsÐ „Ô  Ðdirector€of€the€office€of€liquidation€testified€that€ð ðBased€on€what€I€know€with€or€without€Ô_ÔTECCÔ_Ô,€thisÐ pÀ Ðcompany€[Pointer€Oil]€couldnððt€survive€because€it€had€never€performed€on€a€cash€basis€at€a€profit.ðð€Ð \¬ ÐWhen€asked€to€explain€that€conclusion,€the€witness€stated:€€Ð H˜ ÐÌà8  àIt€always€operated€at€a€loss.€€And€after€a€portion€of€the€$250,000.00€financing€fromÐ  p ÐTennessee€Equity€had€been€consumed€to€cover€operating€losses€or€losses€onÐ  \ Ðtransactions€and€then€debt€is€accumulating€amongst€the€creditors,€be€it€Sprague€OilÐ øH Ðor€the€people€that€performed€the€shipping€or€the€people,€whatever,€rent,€whatever€the€Ð ä4 Ðother€expense€may€be,€the€debt€begins€to€grow.€€And€after€Brenda€Ô_ÔReshaÔ_Ô€and€theÐ Ð  Ðothers€are€out,€the€losses€start€occurring€at€a€much€greater€amount€as€expenses€go€up.м Ð Ð  ÐÌà8  àThis€company,€when€you€look€at€it,€the€facts€providing,€is€never€making€money,€andÐ ”ä Ðthere€is€no€reason€to€believe€that€under€any€circumstances€a€company€that€is€operatingÐ €Ð Ðin€such€a€manner€is€going€to€survive.Ðl¼Ð Ð  ÐÌà  àInstead€of€disputing€the€basic€facts€underlying€the€conclusions€as€to€the€reason€for€theÐ D!” Ðcompanyððs€Ô_ÔnonprofitabilityÔ_Ô,€the€Pointers€first€assert€that€the€trial€courtððs€statement€that€Pointer€OilÐ 0"€  Ðð ðcould€only€make€money€if€it€sold€petroleum€products€for€a€price€higher€than€the€cost€it€had€to€payÐ #l! Ðits€suppliers€plus€delivery€and€administrative€costðð€is€incorrect.€€ð ðBecause€of€Mr.€Pointerððs€minorityÐ $X" Ðstatus,€Ô_ÔPOCÔ_Ô€was€provided€preferable€treatment€in€the€bidding€process€(i.e.€3%€„€5%€buffer);€andÐ ô$D # Ðbecause€of€Governmental€Status€of€Ô_ÔPOCÔ_Ô€purchases,€Ô_ÔPOCÔ_Ô€would€also€gain€tax€rebate€funds/credits;Ð à%0!$ Ðall€of€which€if€allowed€to€go€to€fruition€would€prove€to€be€profitable€for€Ô_ÔPOCÔ_Ô.ðð€€The€Pointers€argueÐ Ì&"% Ðthat€Pointer€Oilððs€status€as€a€minority€owned€enterprise€entitled€it€to€preferential€treatment€in€theÐ ° Ðbidding€process.€€They€characterize€this€preference€as€a€ð ðbuilt„in€additional€5%€preference€over€itsÐ œì Ðcompetitors.ðð€€For€support€of€this€assertion,€they€point€to€Mr.€Pointerððs€affidavit€in€which€he€states:Ð ˆØ ÐÌà8  àAs€a€member€of€a€disadvantaged€minority€and€as€the€principal€shareholder€of€PointerÐ `° ÐOil€Company,€Inc.,€the€company€was€provided€with€an€advantage€in€bidding€on€allÐ L œ Ðof€its€contracts€since€the€company€was€allowed€a€5%€preference€on€all€bids.€€ThisÐ 8 ˆ Ðresulted€in€the€company€being€able€to€maintain€at€least€3%€gross€profit€margin€on€allÐ $ t Ðaccounts.Ð `Ð Ð  ÐÌà  àWe€find€this€statement€insufficient€to€rebut€Ô_ÔTECCÔ_Ôððs€evidence€regarding€the€cause€of€PointerÐ è 8  ÐOils€failure€to€make€a€profit.€€While€a€bidding€preference€may€help€a€company€obtain€business,€itÐ Ô$  Ðdoes€not€have€any€effect€on€the€cost€to€be€paid€under€a€contract.€€While€such€a€preference€may€allowÐ À  Ðeligible€companies€to€increase€their€profit€margin€and€still€win€a€contract€even€though€bidding€aÐ ¬ü  Ðhigher€price,€it€does€not€mandate€how€a€company€prices€its€bids.€€Thus,€even€if€the€preference€madeÐ ˜è  Ðit€possible€for€Pointer€Oil€to€build€in€a€3%€gross€profit€margin,€there€is€no€proof€that€the€contractsÐ „Ô  Ðwere€so€structured.€€The€Pointers€have€failed€to€provide€any€evidence€of€their€use€of€the€biddingÐ pÀ Ðpreference,€its€effect€on€profit€from€any€contract,€or€its€benefit€or€potential€benefit,€in€terms€ofÐ \¬ Ðprofitability€from€contract€pricing.€€Their€reference€to€its€availability€and€general€benefits€are€notÐ H˜ Ðsufficient€to€defeat€summary€judgment.Ð 4„ ÐÌà  àThey€also€appear€to€argue€that€the€refund€of€taxes€on€sales€to€tax„exempt€governmentalÐ  \ Ðentities€provided€part€of€the€profit€margin.€€They€have,€however€failed€to€provide€any€examples€orÐ øH Ðevidence€as€to€how€the€tax€rebate€affected€profit€margin.€€The€rebates€were€just€that:€refunding€ofÐ ä4 Ðtaxes€already€paid.€€When€Pointer€Oil€bought€products€from€a€supplier,€it€paid€the€supplier€forÐ Ð  Ðvarious€taxes,€including€some€imposed€by€the€state.€€When€Pointer€Oil€sold€to€governmental€entitiesÐ ¼  Ðwhich€were€exempt€from€state€taxation,€it€was€eligible€for€a€refund€of€the€taxes€it€had€paid.€€TheÐ ¨ø ÐPointers€have€failed€to€explain€or€demonstrate€how€this€refund€affected€its€profitability.€€In€any€event,Ð ”ä Ðthe€records€of€the€bankruptcy€proceeding€show€that€the€total€amount€of€rebates€due€at€that€time€wasÐ €Ð Ðless€than€the€amount€Pointer€Oil€owed€to€one€supplier.€€The€Pointers€have€not€demonstrated€that€theÐ l¼ Ðrebates€would€have€made€Pointer€Oil€profitable€in€spite€of€the€underpricing€of€contracts.Ð X ¨ ÐÌà  àIn€addition€to€disputing€the€trial€courtððs€finding,€the€Pointers€also€assert€that€it€was€Mr.Ð 0"€  ÐCohenððs€actions€which€resulted€in€Pointer€Oilððs€demise€and€that€this€assertion€creates€a€genuine€issueÐ #l! Ðof€material€fact.€€The€specific€actions€they€allege€are€that€Mr.€Cohen€ð ðmisappropriated€or€stole€fundsððÐ $X" Ðfrom€Pointer€Oil€and€caused€the€withholding€of€tax€refunds.€€Ð ô$D # ÐÌà  àThe€Pointers€argue€that€Ô_ÔTECCÔ_Ôððs€actions€preventing€Pointer€Oil€from€receiving€the€tax€refundsÐ Ì&"% Ðcontributed€caused€its€demise.€€Ms.€Day€testified€that€she€routinely€prepared€the€tax€refund€requestsÐ ¸'#& Ðthat€were€sent€to€the€state€and€that€she€prepared€such€a€request€in€April€of€1990.€€It€was€shortly€afterÐ ¤(ô#' Ðthat€Mr.€Pointer€removed€the€administrative€functions€from€Ô_ÔTECCÔ_Ô€employees.€€The€PointersððÐ )à$( Ðargument€that€Ô_ÔTECCÔ_Ô€prevented€Pointer€Oil€from€receiving€tax€refunds€appears€to€stem€from€theÐ |*Ì%) Ðfiling€in€this€litigation€in€which€Ô_ÔTECCÔ_Ô€claimed€an€interest€in€the€money€being€held€by€theÐ h+¸&* ÐCommissioner€of€Revenue.€€That€money,€tax€refunds€due€Pointer€Oil,€was€Ô_ÔinterpleadedÔ_Ô€into€court.€Ð ° ÐThe€subsequent€bankruptcy€postponed€decision€on€the€rights€to€that€money,€and€it€was€eventuallyÐ œì Ðtransferred€to€the€bankruptcy€trustee.Ð ˆØ ÐÌà  àThe€Pointers€claim€that€the€withholding€of€the€tax€refunds€diminished€the€cash€flow€intoÐ `° ÐPointer€Oil,€rendering€it€unable€to€pay€suppliers,€the€ultimate€cause€of€its€demise.€€Again,€however,Ð L œ Ðthe€Pointers€have€produced€no€evidence€to€support€this€allegation.€€€They€have€produced€no€cash€flowÐ 8 ˆ Ðanalysis€or€any€actual€figures.€€In€any€event,€the€withholding€of€Pointer€Oilððs€tax€refunds€did€notÐ $ t Ðoccur€until€after€Mr.€Pointer€had€disassociated€Pointer€Oil€from€Ô_ÔTECCÔ_Ô.€€In€fact,€it€did€not€occur€untilÐ  ` Ðafter€the€Pointers€filed€this€lawsuit.€€Their€complaint€was€filed€in€May,€and€Ô_ÔTECCÔ_Ôððs€third€partyÐ ü L  Ðcomplaint€was€filed€in€July.€€Pointer€Oil€continued€to€operate€after€the€funds€were€Ô_ÔinterpleadedÔ_Ô€intoÐ è 8  Ðcourt€and€continued€to€incur€higher€operating€costs.Ð Ô$  ÐÌà  àPointer€Oilððs€inability€to€access€the€tax€refunds€was€the€result€of€filings€in€this€litigation€inÐ ¬ü  Ðwhich€Ô_ÔTECCÔ_Ô€claimed€rights€to€the€refunds€on€the€basis€of€its€status€as€a€creditor.׃ ×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú15Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€It€is€clear€thisÐ ˜è  Ðaction€took€place€after€Ô_ÔTECCÔ_Ô€was€no€longer€involved€in€the€operation€of€Pointer€Oil.€€As€the€PointersÐ „Ô  Ðhave€asserted,€the€bankruptcy€court€found€that€the€evidence€indicated€that€Pointer€Oil€was€insolventÐ pÀ Ðin€May€1990,€which€was€before€Ô_ÔTECCÔ_Ô€filed€the€claim€against€the€tax€refunds.€€This€conclusion€isÐ \¬ Ðconsistent€with€Mr.€Smithððs€opinion€that€Pointer€Oil€was€never€profitable.€€In€addition,€he€testifiedÐ H˜ Ðthat€as€of€April€1990,€Pointer€Oil€had€operating€losses€of€over€$106,000€as€well€as€an€additionalÐ 4„ Ð$19,000€in€debt€repayment.€€These€losses€were€covered€by€the€money€from€Ô_ÔTECCÔ_Ô.€€We€find€that€theÐ  p ÐPointers€have€not€provided€sufficient€evidence€regarding€the€effect€of€the€withholding€of€the€taxÐ  \ Ðrefunds,€occurring€after€July€1990,€to€create€an€issue€of€fact€regarding€the€cause€of€Pointer€OilððsÐ øH Ðdemise.Ð ä4 ÐÌà  àThe€Pointersðð€final€argument€regarding€the€viability€of€Pointer€Oil€is€that€Ô_ÔTECCÔ_Ôððs€actions€inÐ ¼  Ðdeclaring€Pointer€Oil€in€default€and€in€withdrawing€over€$142,000€from€Pointer€Oil€for€allegedly€dueÐ ¨ø Ðbut€unpaid€dividends€damaged€Pointer€Oilððs€ability€to€continue€in€business.€€Again,€the€Pointers€haveÐ ”ä Ðfailed€to€provide€facts€regarding€the€impact€of€this€withdrawal.€€Other€testimony€indicates€that€it€wasÐ €Ð Ðthe€loan€from€Ô_ÔTECCÔ_Ô€which€had€covered€operating€losses,€and€the€Pointers€do€not€explain€the€impactÐ l¼ Ðof€the€companyððs€Ô_ÔidebtednessÔ_Ô€on€its€financial€future.€€They€rely€heavily€on€statements€in€theÐ X ¨ Ðbankruptcy€courtððs€order€denying€Ô_ÔTECCÔ_Ôððs€claim€in€the€bankruptcy€proceeding€wherein€that€courtÐ D!” Ðdenied€Ô_ÔTECCÔ_Ôððs€claim€for€$178,286.38.€€Relevant€to€the€issues€herein€are€the€following€excerpts:Ð 0"€  ÐÌà8  à.€.€.€even€if€Ô_ÔTECCÔ_Ô€accomplished€a€partial€redemption€of€its€stock€on€May€3,€1990,Ð $X" Ðthere€is€a€substantial€likelihood€that€Pointer€Oil€Company€is€entitled€to€recover€theÐ ô$D # Ð$143,000€that€Ô_ÔTECCÔ_Ô€paid€itself€from€the€corporate€treasury€of€Pointer€Oil€under€ððððÐ à%0!$ Ð544,€547€or€548€of€the€Bankruptcy€Code.€€The€evidence€presented€indicates€thatÐ Ì&"% ÐPointer€Oil€was€insolvent€or€was€rendered€insolvent€in€May€of€1990.€€It€is€more€likelyÐ ¸'#& Ðthan€not€that€the€transfers€of€cash€from€Pointer€oil€to€Ô_ÔTECCÔ_Ô€in€May€1990€wereÐ ¤(ô#' Ðpreferential€or€fraudulent€conveyances€or€constituted€outright€theft€of€the€assets€ofÐ ° ÐPointer€Oil.€€The€trustee€appears€to€have€rights€of€recovery€from€Ô_ÔTECCÔ_Ô€with€respectÐ œì Ðto€the€$143,000€it€took€from€the€debtor€in€May€of€1990.€€These€rights€precludeÐ ˆØ Ðallowance€of€Ô_ÔTECCÔ_Ôððs€claim€under€ðð€502.ÐtÄÐ Ð  ÐÌà  àWe€do€not€agree€with€the€Pointers€as€to€the€conclusions€to€be€drawn€from€these€statements.Ð L œ ÐThey€simply€indicate€the€bankruptcy€courtððs€findings,€applying€bankruptcy€law,€regarding€theÐ 8 ˆ Ðinclusion€of€the€$143,000€withdrawal€in€the€bankruptððs€assets€subject€to€distribution€to€creditors.€Ð $ t ÐThe€court€stated€that€since€Pointer€Oil€was€insolvent,€the€transfer€was€preferential€or€fraudulent€underÐ  ` Ðbankruptcy€law.€€Such€is€the€case€when€money€is€removed€so€that€a€rightful€party,€a€creditor€withÐ ü L  Ðpriority,€is€deprived€of€it.€€At€the€time€of€the€bankruptcy€courtððs€order,€the€issue€was€not€whetherÐ è 8  ÐPointer€Oil€was€entitled€to€the€$143,000;€the€question€was€which€of€its€creditors€was€entitled€to€it.€Ð Ô$  ÐNothing€in€the€bankruptcy€courtððs€order,€relied€upon€by€the€Pointers,€supports€their€argument€thatÐ À  ÐÔ_ÔTECCÔ_Ôððs€withdrawal€of€money€was€the€cause€of€Pointer€Oilððs€lack€of€profitability€or€its€demise.€€TheÐ ¬ü  Ðbankruptcy€courtððs€findings€on€the€question€then€before€it€do€not€alter€the€fact€that€the€Pointers€failedÐ ˜è  Ðto€show€that,€absent€the€preferential€transfer,€Pointer€Oil€would€have€remained€viable.€€Nothing€inÐ „Ô  Ðthe€courtððs€findings€indicate€that€Pointer€Oil€was€otherwise€viable.€€€Ð pÀ ÐÌÓ  ÓVI.Ð H˜ ÐÓKãÓÌÔ‡X2¨XXX2¨Ôà  àAccordingly,€we€conclude€that€Pointer€Oil€failed€to€rebut€TECCððs€proof€that€Pointer€Oil€wasÐ  p Ðnot€profitable€and€that€there€was€no€causal€connection€between€Pointer€Oilððs€demise€and€any€actionÐ  \ Ðby€Ô_ÔTECCÔ_Ô.€€ð ðThe€evidence€of€the€non„moving€party€must€show€more€than€a€mere€metaphysical€doubtÐ øH Ðas€to€material€facts,€but€must€include€competent€and€material€evidence€of€the€nonexistence€of€factsÐ ä4 Ðasserted€by€the€moving€party€and/or€other€facts€which€effectively€Ô_ÔdisentitleÔ_Ô€the€moving€party€toÐ Ð  Ðsummary€judgment.ðð€€òòCaldwell€v.€Nissan€Motor€Manufacturing€Corp.,€U.S.A.óó,€968€S.W.2d€863,€865Ð ¼  Ð(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1998),€(citing€òòMatsushita€Elec.€Indus.€Co.,€Ltd.€v.€Zenith€Radio€Corpóó.,€475€U.S.€574,Ð ¨ø Ð106€Ô_ÔS.CtÔ_Ô.€1348,€89€Ô_ÔL.EdÔ_Ô.2d€538€(1986)).Ô#†X2¨XXX2¨€ã#ÔÔ‡X2¨XXX2¨Ô€€It€is€well€settled€that€ð ð[t]estimonyÔ#†X2¨XXX2¨¿ç#Ô€which€amounts€to€mereÐ ”ä Ðspeculation€is€not€evidence€which€establishes€proximate€cause.ðð€€òòPrimm€v.€Wickes€Lumber€Co.óó,€845Ð €Ð ÐS.W.2d€768,€771€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1992)€(òòperm.€app.€deniedóó€Nov.€23,€1992)€(citing€òòLindsey€v.€MiamiÐ l¼ ÐDev.€Corp.óó,€689€S.W.2d€856,€861„62€(Tenn.€1985);€òòPorter€v.€Greenóó,€745€S.W.2d€874,€877„78€(Tenn.Ð X ¨ ÐCt.€App.€1987)).€€Subjective€belief€and€speculation€are€insufficient€to€create€the€requisite€casualÐ D!” Ðconnection.€€òòReed€v.€Alamo€Rent„A„Car,€Incóó.,€4€S.W.3d€677,€685€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1999)€(wrongfulÐ 0"€  Ðdischarge).Ð #l! ÐÌà  àAccording€to€Mr.€Smithððs€testimony,€the€cause€of€Pointer€Oilððs€inability€to€earn€a€profit€wasÐ ô$D # Ðthe€underpricing€of€the€sales€contract,€which€undisputedly€was€handled€solely€by€Mr.€Pointer.€€TheÐ à%0!$ ÐPointers€have€failed€to€establish€any€evidence€of€a€causal€connection€between€any€action€ofÐ Ì&"% ÐDefendants€and€the€eventual€demise€of€Pointer€Oil.€€Without€such€causal€connection,€Ô_ÔTECCÔ_Ô€and€Mr.Ð ¸'#& ÐPointer€cannot€be€liable€for€any€consequences€of€that€lack€of€profitability€and€demise.€€Therefore,Ð ¤(ô#' Ðsummary€judgment€was€appropriate.Ð )à$( ÐÌà  àFor€the€reasons€stated€herein,€we€affirm€the€trial€courtððs€grant€of€summary€judgment.€€ThisÐ h+¸&* Ðcause€is€remanded€for€any€further€actions€which€may€be€necessary.€€Costs€of€this€appeal€are€taxed€Ð ° Ðto€Appellants,€John€L.€Pointer,€Victoria€Pointer,€and€Pointer€Oil€Co.,€Inc.,Ô‡X2¨XXX2¨Ô€for€which€execution€mayÐ œì Ðissue€if€necessary.Ð ˆØ ÐÌÌÌÔ#†X2¨XXX2¨Ñî#Ôà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à____________________________________Ð 8 ˆ Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àPATRICIA€J.€COTTRELL,€JUDGEÐ $ t Ð