Appeals

Fifth Circuit Upholds Jury’s Vindication of Dillon Gage in Fraudulent Transfer Suit Bought by Stanford Receiver

Fifth Circuit Upholds Jury’s Vindication of Dillon Gage in Fraudulent Transfer Suit

Bought by Stanford Receiver

May 5, 2017 in Case Summaries

In a published opinion addressing numerous aspects of the Texas Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act, the Fifth Circuit upheld a July 2015 jury verdict in favor of Levinger PC client Dillon Gage Incorporated of Dallas in a long-running dispute with Ralph Janvey, the court-appointed receiver in the Stanford Ponzi scheme litigation.  The Court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the jury’s finding that Stanford Coins & Bullion did not have an intent to hinder, delay, or defraud creditors when it made six payments totaling $5.1 million to Dillon Gage, a coin and bullion wholesaler, in the weeks leading up to the receivership.  In particular, the Court emphasized evidence showing that SCB intended to satisfy its obligations to all of its retail customers, as well as the Receiver’s failure to establish that SCB was insolvent at the time of the transfers.  Finally, the Court rejected the Receiver’s complaints about four aspects of the jury charge, including an instruction that a fraudulent intent cannot be inferred from a debtor’s mere intent to prefer one creditor over another.  Janvey v. Dillon Gage Incorporated of Dallas, 2017 WL 1821498, ___ F.3d ___ (5th Cir. 2017).Click edit button to change this text.

Courts: Federal Courts of Appeals
Subject Matter: Business Litigation, Procedural & Evidentiary Issues

Comments Off on Fifth Circuit Upholds Jury’s Vindication of Dillon Gage in Fraudulent Transfer Suit Bought by Stanford Receiver

Dallas Court of Appeals Again Stops Forced Sale of Valuable Partnership Property

Dallas Court of Appeals Again Stops Forced Sale of Valuable Partnership Property

April 6, 2017 in Case Summaries

For a second time, Levinger PC persuaded the Dallas Court of Appeals to reject a trial court order requiring the forced sale of valuable real property over the objection of client Steven Spiritas, a 50% partner in the entity that owns the property.  The trial court had granted partial summary judgment declaring the occurrence of a winding-up event, and then appointed a winding-up representative to sell the partnership’s property.  Spiritas brought a petition for writ of mandamus to challenge the winding-up orders, arguing that the trial court’s appointment of a winding-up representative impermissibly allowed execution on a nonappealable, interlocutory order.  The court of appeals granted Spiritas’s petition, holding that the trial court had abused its discretion by allowing the execution of a non-final order, and that mandamus relief was available to prevent the property from being sold before Spiritas could exercise his appellate rights.  In re Steven Spiritas, Individually and as Trustee of the Spiritas SF 1999 Trust, No. 05-16-00791-CV, 2017 WL 1281394 (Tex. App.-Dallas Apr. 6, 2017) (orig. proceeding).

Courts: Texas Intermediate Appellate Courts
Subject Matter: Business Litigation, Oil & Gas/Real Estate

Comments Off on Dallas Court of Appeals Again Stops Forced Sale of Valuable Partnership Property

Amarillo Appellate Court Upholds Vacatur of Multi-Million Dollar Arbitration Award.

Amarillo Appellate Court Upholds Vacatur of Multi-Million Dollar Arbitration Award.

February 14, 2017 in Case Summaries

Working closely with Michael Gruber and his trial team at Gruber Elrod Johansen Hail Shank, Jeff Levinger wrote the appellee’s brief that persuaded the Amarillo Court of Appeals to uphold the vacatur of a $2.3 million arbitration award against Raeanne Martin in a dispute among the shareholders of a closely-held Texas corporation.  Although the Court noted that review of an arbitration award is “extraordinarily narrow,” it held that the three-member arbitration panel had exceeded its powers by hearing and deciding the dispute even though the parties had previously signed a Rule 11 settlement agreement.  Having affirmed the vacatur of the award on that ground, the Court did not reach the second basis for vacatur  that the panel also had exceeded its powers by granting relief that was not authorized under the parties’ shareholder agreement.  Higginson v. Martin, No. 07-15-00343-CV, 2017 WL 603626 (Tex. App.-Amarillo Feb. 14, 2017, pet. filed).

Courts: Texas Intermediate Appellate Courts
Subject Matter: Business Litigation, Procedural and Evidentiary Issues

Comments Off on Amarillo Appellate Court Upholds Vacatur of Multi-Million Dollar Arbitration Award.

Lender Liability Suit Revived After Dismissal by Summary Judgment

Lender Liability Suit Revived After Dismissal by Summary Judgment

July 7, 2016 in Case Summaries

The Dallas Court of Appeals reversed the summary judgment dismissal of a lender liability lawsuit brought by Levinger PC clients David Bagwell and The Bagwell Trust against BBVA Compass and its loan officer. Bagwell alleged that the defendants had defrauded him by representing that it would renew and not sell three promissory notes securing valuable real estate, when in fact it had secretly negotiated to sell the notes to a competitor of Bagwell. The defendants raised five defenses  statute of frauds, res judicata, collateral estoppel, estoppel by contract, and the economic loss rule  and the trial court granted summary judgment without specifying which defense supported its ruling. The Dallas Court of Appeals concluded that none of these defenses warranted the grant of summary judgment, and remanded the case for further proceedings. Bagwell v. BBVA Compass, No. 05-14-01579-CV, 2016 WL 3660403 (Tex. App.-Dallas July 7, 2016, no pet.) (mem. op.).

Courts: Texas Intermediate Appellate Courts
Subject Matter: Business Litigation, Oil & Gas/Real Estate

Comments Off on Lender Liability Suit Revived After Dismissal by Summary Judgment

Dallas Court of Appeals Sets Aside New Trial Order Based on Claimed Violation of Disciplinary Rule

Dallas Court of Appeals Sets Aside New Trial Order Based on Claimed Violation of Disciplinary Rule

May 6, 2016 in Case Summaries

Assisted by trial counsel Ken Chaiken and appellate co-counsel Carl Cecere, Jeff Levinger convinced the Dallas Court of Appeals to grant mandamus relief compelling the trial court to set aside its order granting a new trial in a hotly-contested real estate dispute. Following a week-long trial, a Dallas County jury found that Levinger PC clients Douglas Hickok and VSDH Vaquero Venture did not defraud or breach their contract with the plaintiffs. The trial court, however, granted the plaintiffs a new trial, finding that Vaquero’s trial counsel had violated Texas Disciplinary Rule 3.08 by acting as both an advocate and a witness at trial. Invoking the recent Texas Supreme Court trilogy of cases allowing mandamus review of orders granting new trials, Hickok and Vaquero claimed that a purported violation of Rule 3.08 was not a legally appropriate basis for granting a new trial. The Court of Appeals agreed, and ordered the trial court to render a take-nothing judgment on the jury’s verdict. In re VSDH Vaquero Venture, Ltd., No. 05-15-0513-CV, 2016 WL 2621073 (Tex. App.-Dallas May 6, 2016, pet. denied).

Courts: Texas Intermediate Appellate Courts
Subject Matter: Ethics & Professional Malpractice, Procedural & Evidentiary Issues

Comments Off on Dallas Court of Appeals Sets Aside New Trial Order Based on Claimed Violation of Disciplinary Rule