Indiana appeals court rules against former state Sen. Brent Waltz in long-simmering business dispute

The Indiana Court of Appeals this week ruled against former state Sen. Brent Waltz in a yearslong dispute with a former business partner. 

In October 2022, Waltz filed a lawsuit alleging that James R. Gibson, his former business partner, committed acts of misconduct against him and their shared company, Velox Express Inc., prompting Waltz to claim theft, fraud and breach of fiduciary duty. 

In a Feb. 16 opinion written by Senior Judge Terry Crone, the court reversed the Johnson Superior Court’s denial of the motion for summary judgment by appellants Velox Express Inc. and Gibson and remanded with instructions to grant the motion.

“I respect the opinion of the Court of Appeals and will be conferring with my legal counsel next week to plan our next steps,” Waltz told The Indiana Lawyer in an email.

Attorneys for the appellants did not respond to requests for comment in time for publication. Representatives for Velox also did not immediately respond to messages from The Lawyer, nor did Gibson, when messaged via LinkedIn.

The opinion was issued just days after a federal judge denied Waltz’s motion to overturn his prison sentence for planning and participating in election finance schemes.

In August 2022, Waltz was sentenced to 10 months in federal prison after pleading guilty to receiving fictitious donations and misleading FBI agents who were investigating the case. Waltz was indicted in 2020 for using straw donors to illegally funnel around $40,000 in casino money into his unsuccessful 2016 campaign for the U.S. House of Representatives alongside former State Rep. John Keeler. The latter was vice president and general counsel of the gaming company New Centaur LLC when the scheme took place, according to court documents.

In October 2022, two months after his sentencing and shortly after being removed as a director of Velox during an alleged – and unspecified in court documents – dispute, Waltz sued Velox and Gibson, claiming Gibson had mismanaged and defrauded the company.

Waltz claimed Gibson had allowed Velox’s legal entity status to expire on numerous occasions, failed to pay dividends and used the company’s funds and assets for personal gain, according to court documents. He also accused Gibson of allowing around $7,000 in Velox credit card advances to be stolen after Gibson was arrested for soliciting a prostitute while operating the company’s Miami office. (According to Miami-Dade County records, a James Robert Gibson was arrested in 2012 on charges of soliciting a prostitute. The case was closed in 2013.)

Waltz claimed the company breached its contractual obligations it had to him. 

Velox argued that Waltz was “improperly attempt[ing] to assert derivative claims directly” because his claims derived from his status as a shareholder and therefore couldn’t be maintained independently. As a result, the company established a “disinterested special litigation committee” to examine the claims made by Waltz and determine if derivative action was appropriate.

That committee ultimately concluded it was not in the company’s best interests to pursue Waltz’s claims, according to court records.

Velox filed a motion for summary judgment in March 2023, saying the committee’s report removed the need for Waltz’s lawsuit. In February 2025, Velox then filed a second motion for summary judgment and a designation of evidence, which Gibson joined.

The trial court denied the second motion, concluding “there are genuine issues of material fact in dispute.”

In interlocutory appeal, the state appellate court addressed the issue of whether Velox and Gibson were entitled to summary judgment based on their claim that Waltz’s suit is a derivative action barred by the special litigation committee’s report.

The court determined that Waltz failed to meet his burden of proof by not providing evidence in response to Velox and Gibson’s second motion for summary judgment.

Appellate judges Mark Bailey and Dana Kenworthy concurred.

It’s not the only time Waltz and the company were on opposite sides of a court filing.

Concurrent to the 2022 lawsuit, after the company merged with Velox of Delaware Inc. in 2023, Waltz asserted dissenter’s rights, arguing he should be paid more than what Velox was offering.

In that case, Velox filed a declaratory judgment action asking for the court to determine if Waltz qualified as a dissenter under state law. The trial court granted the company’s request, stating Waltz was entitled only to payment for the fair value of his shares in the company. 

The case is Velox Express, Inc., and James R. Gibson v. Darryl Brent Waltz, Jr., 25A-PL-1499.