a closely held corporation alone does not automatically create a fiduciary relationship between co-shareholders or co-members. See Kaspar v. Thorne, 755 S.W.2d 151, 155 (Tex.App.-Dallas 1988, no writ); see also Pabich v. Kellar, 71 S.W.3d 500, 504 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 2002, pet. denied) (op. on reh’g); Hoggett v. Brown, 971 S.W.2d 472, 488 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1997, pet. denied). And Texas courts have declined to recognize a broad formal fiduciary a formal fiduciary duty between co-shareholders of an LLC in the context of a redemption where the majority ownership interest had dominant control over the operation and management of the business); Vejara v. Levior Int’l LLC, No. 04-11-00595-CV, 2012 WL 5354681, at *5 (Tex. App.-San Antonio Oct. 31, 2012, pet. denied) (mem. op.) (<HOLDING>). Section 6.01 provides that the Lackners, as
holding that a termination of an erisa plans benefits must be based upon the plans terms and language holding authority to control limits duty to control holding that employers decision to merge plans did not invoke the fiduciary duty provisions of erisa holding that vejaras control and intimate knowledge of the companys affairs and plans gave rise to the existence of an informal fiduciary duty to levior holding that contract between parties not law of negligence gave rise to duty and accordingly provided exclusive source of remedy