The brothers Corrales, Rudy and Richard, formed RC Electronics (RCE) in 1989, according to a written partnership agreement with an indefinite term.2RCE repaired, refurbished, and sold computer tape drives. The brothers agreed that Rudy would be responsible for running the business, while Richard would supply financing and business know-how. Richard already had a thriving business occupying him full time; he became involved in RCE because Rudy could not obtain enough financing on his own to start a business.

Rudy's wife, Pamela, came on board shortly after RCE started up; she became the office manager and was responsible for preparing the company's business records. Their two daughters also worked for RCE.

The business was quite successful for several years, and Rudy and Richard realized substantial sums from it. In 2004, however, Richard discovered that Rudy, Pamela, and their daughters had formed a competing business, PK Electronics (PKE), to perform the same services performedby RCE, butwithout Richard.3When Richard inquired about PKE, Rudy refused to tell him anything and cut off all communication with him.

Richard sent Rudy a "Notice of Dissociation," dated April 12, 2005, in which he stated that he was withdrawing from the partnership. Richard and Rudy sued each other in 2006 in separate lawsuits. Richard sued Rudy, Pamela, the two daughters, PKE, and RCE for breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, fraud, conspiracy,misappropriation of trade secrets, and accounting. Rudy sued Richard for breach of contract, common counts, fraud, negligent misrepresentation, breach of fiduciary duty, and "Cal. Corp. Code, 16703."

The two lawsuits were tried together to the court over four days in June 2009. A major issue in the case was the valuation of the business for buyout purposes, pursuant toCorporations Code4section 16701. Competing experts testified. Richard's expert based his valuation estimates on the company's financial statements and regarded the partnership tax returns as unreliable. Rudy's expert made disparaging remarks about the financial statements and based his valuation on the tax returns. The court adopted Rudy's expert's valuation. The court also found that Rudy had concealed the existence of PKE from Richard, but held that Richard had not proved any damages arising from the concealment.

Richard has appealed on two issues. First, he asserts that there was no evidence to support Rudy's expert's valuation of the business and that the court should have picked one of his expert's valuations. Second, he asserts that he did prove damagesarising from Rudy's breach of his fiduciary duty to RCE by forming and doing business through PKE.

what is teh issue in Corrales v. Corrales, case?