- Contract Disputes
- Shareholder or Partnership Disputes
- Disputes with Other Companies
- Government Compliance
- Accounting Malpractice
- Asset Misappropriation
- Business Interruption
- Sales, Mergers or Acquisitions
- Real Estate Disputes
“Another Somebody Done Somebody Wrong Song”
As Charlie Rich laments in the popular country song, betrayal is common in love. Apparently, it is just as common in business. Most business disputes that reach litigation are about somebody placing their trust in somebody else and having that trust betrayed. It is impossible to live and do business without trusting others with our money, our valuables, our confidential information, or our most sacred relationships — in essence, our very heart and soul. Often this trust is honored, sometimes for a whole lifetime. But, occasionally, the lure of money combined with a disregard for others, causes some people to “take the money and run.” If it’s your money, this will be a painful event that leaves you with limited options. And, the first thing you have to do in order to exercise any of those options is to acknowledge that this breach of trust is called “Fraud.”
Whatare your rights & obligations?
Business Litigation is Complex Litigation.
Unlike an intersectional collision or an armed robbery, most business disputes cannot be captured on a video or described by a witness as an event that happened in a single scene. Rather, business disputes usually come wrapped in layers of “contracts” or “agreements” or “money spent or borrowed” or “spreadsheets,” etc. Often the relevant events happen over extended periods and involve multiple actors. Almost always, the opposing parties have wonderous reasons by which they attempt to justify all of their conduct, illicit or otherwise. The result of these factual and legal complexities makes the process of preparing and trying a business case expensive, time consuming and inefficient. This, in and of itself creates yet another problem.
By the time a business transaction turns into a lawsuit or a potential lawsuit, the stakes have become higher and both sides have more to lose than contemplated initially. As this process continues, a “black hole” develops so that the more each side spends, the more each side has to lose. Litigation cost must be factored into the cost of settlement as well as the cost of continuing with the litigation. This is the dilemma faced in virtually all business litigation.
Howcan we help?
When you come to us with a business dispute, we don’t have a magic bullet to make your problem go away. But we bring to the table skills to help you minimize losses and harm. First, it is likely that we have a working knowledge of your business or industry and the legal and regulatory framework in which it operates. Second, it is also quite likely that we have previously handled or litigated issues similar to those in your case.
Back to Civil Litigation
Hereford Cattle Commission Company v. High Plains Savings & Loan, In the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Texas, Amarillo Division; Case No. 284-20264 and Adversary No. 285-2057
In this case we represented the bankruptcy estate of a livestock auction company which had deposited proceeds from sale of cattle in its auction into a trust account to be held for the owners of the sold cattle. High Plains Savings & Loan had off-set over $1 million of those trust funds to settle debts owed to it by Hereford Cattle. In other words, High Plains wrongfully took money from innocent third-parties to settle a debt owed by Hereford Cattle. Ultimately, the Court found this to be the case and granted judgment against High Plains. In this case we worked closely with and were assisted by the Packers and Stockyards Administration of the United States Government.
Aldus Marketing Association v. Thomas K. Martin et al., In the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Texas, Amarillo Division; Bankruptcy Case No. 288-20523-JCA-11 and Adversary No. 288-2095
After a three-day trial, the Court granted an injunction affecting over $1 million worth of assets which had been secreted and absconded with by the managers of a farm cooperative. Ultimately, the temporary injunction became a final injunction.
In re Ted True, Individually, (Case No. 284-20110) and In re Ted True, Inc. (Case No. 284-20111), In the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division
A suit to prove alter ego and for substantive consolidation on behalf of the (Trade) Creditors’ Committee for Ted True, Inc., the bankruptcy estate in which the owner, Ted True, had conveniently place all of the debt and none of the $15 million in assets. Ultimately, while this adversary suit was lost, it was used as the basis for filing a joint plan of liquidation which resulted in an outcome that provided the trade creditors the relief that was requested in this adversary.