Walta v. Gallegos Law Firm, P.C.
New Mexico Court of Appeals
40 P.3d 449 (2001)
- Written by Rose VanHofwegen, JD
Facts
Minority shareholder Mary Walta (plaintiff) sued the Gallegos Law Firm, P.C. (GLF) and its controlling majority shareholder, J.E. “Gene” Gallegos (defendants) after Gallegos essentially terminated Walta and grossly undervalued her shares for buyout purposes. GLF was a close corporation with five attorney-shareholders. Walta worked for GLF for four years before disagreements over GLF’s finances began. Gallegos said he planned to dissolve GLF and buy out all the shareholders while secretly offering all but Walta continued employment. GLF had a shareholder agreement in its bylaws that entitled departing shareholders to book value for their vested shares, calculated by totaling GLF’s assets and subtracting liabilities as of the departure date. Gallegos omitted GLF’s accounts receivable and used a valuation date several months before Walta left the firm to calculate the value of Walta’s shares as only $20,000—the amount she paid for them. Gallegos’s own expert concluded Walta’s vested shares were worth much more because GLF had accounts receivable of $657,989, bringing the total value of her stock to $62,550. The jury awarded Walta that amount for breach of the shareholder agreement, plus $100,000 against Gallegos for breaching fiduciary duties. Gallegos appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Bustamante, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
