Levinger PC Teams With Gruber Hurst Elrod to Defeat Claims of Stanford Receiver

July 10, 2015 in News
Jeff Levinger served as appellate counsel to client Dillon Gage of Dallas and its trial team at Gruber Hurst Elrod Johansen Hail Shank, who dealt a rare defeat to the Stanford receiver appointed to represent the financial victims of the Ponzi scheme perpetrated by R. Allen Stanford. In a 7-0 verdict rendered after a one-week trial before U.S. District Judge David Godbey, the jury rejected the Receiver’s claim that Stanford Coins & Bullion acted with the intent to hinder, delay, or defraud its creditors when it made over $5.1 million in payments to Dillon Gage in the weeks before the Stanford receivership. Levinger was responsible for handling the jury charge and the Rule 50(a) motions for judgment. The jury charge, which included an important instruction that fraud cannot be inferred from a debtor’s mere intent to prefer one creditor over another, can be found here. A short Texas Lawyer article about the trial is here.

Subject Matter: Business Litigation, Procedural and Evidentiary Issues

By Levinger| July 23rd, 2015|Comments Off

Dallas Court of Appeals Dissolves Garnishment and Reinstates Security Interest of Levinger PC Client

April 29, 2015 in Case Summaries

Joined by appellate lawyer Carl Cecere and trial lawyer Steve Goldston, Jeff Levinger represented Inwood National Bank in its appeal of an adverse judgment in a complex, high-dollar garnishment proceeding. Although Inwood held a perfected security interest in a large investment account owned by one of its borrowers, the trial court concluded that Inwood’s security interest was subordinate to Wells Fargo’s later judgment lien against the same borrower. Addressing an issue of first impression in Texas concerning the meaning of UCC § 9.323(b), the Dallas Court of Appeals agreed with Inwood’s argument that it had taken no actions to compromise its prior, perfected security interest. Accordingly, the court dissolved Wells Fargo’s writ of garnishment and restored Inwood’s security interest in the investment account. Inwood National Bank v. Wells Fargo Bank, 463 S.W.3d 228 (Tex. App. ‑‑ Dallas 2015, no pet.).

Courts: Texas Intermediate Appellate Courts
Subject Matter: Business Litigation

By Levinger| April 29th, 2015|Comments Off

Appointment of Liquidating Receiver Reversed Following Interlocutory Appeal

February 27, 2015 in Case Summaries

Just three weeks after hearing oral argument, the Dallas Court of Appeals reversed a trial court order appointing a receiver to liquidate valuable assets of a partnership jointly owned by Levinger PC client Steven Spiritas. The other owner, Susan Davidoff, had asked the trial court to order the receivership, claiming that a deadlock between herself and Spiritas required the partnership assets to be immediately sold. Spiritas secured a stay of the order, and then successfully argued to the court of appeals that the appointment of the receiver was not authorized under the Texas Business Organizations Code because there was no evidence that any irreparable injury was occurring or threatened. Spiritas v. Davidoff, 459 S.W.3d 224 (Tex. App. ‑‑ Dallas 2015, no pet.).

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

By Levinger| February 27th, 2015|Comments Off

Levinger PC Works With Sullivan & Cromwell Team to Defeat Conspiracy Claims After Five-Week Jury Trial

March 4, 2014 in News
Working closely with Sullivan & Cromwell partners Michael Steinberg, Robert Giuffra, and Laura Oswell, Jeff Levinger successfully defended Enbridge U.S. in a closely-watched Dallas County jury trial involving three of the world’s largest pipeline companies and claims for damages in excess of one billion dollars. In September 2011, Energy Transfer Partners sued Enterprise Products for breach of an alleged partnership to build a crude oil pipeline from Cushing, Oklahoma to the Gulf Coast. ETP also sued Enbridge, claiming that it had conspired with Enterprise to form a new pipeline venture that did not include ETP. After a five-week trial beginning on January 27, 2014, the jury unanimously found that Enbridge did not conspire with Enterprise and did not act with malice toward ETP. As to Enterprise, however, the jury found that it had created a partnership with ETP, had failed to comply with its duty of loyalty, and had caused damages to ETP of $319,375,000. The case has attracted the close attention of energy industry experts and legal commentators over the extent to which Texas law recognizes “partnerships by conduct,” notwithstanding preliminary written agreements that disclaim partnerships and the existence of binding obligations.

Subject Matter: Business Litigation, Oil and Gas/Real Estate

By Levinger| March 14th, 2014|Comments Off

Oral Contract to Reimburse Asbestos Mistake Affirmed on Appeal

January 13, 2014 in Case Summaries

Jeff Levinger represented long-time clients Jakalam Properties and Michael Cohen in persuading the Dallas Court of Appeals to affirm a favorable jury verdict based on the breach of an oral agreement. The agreement arose out of a commitment on the part of an asbestos testing lab to reimburse Jakalam for the expenses it had to incur after the lab mistakenly reported that a building being renovated by Jakalam contained asbestos. The Court rejected the lab’s contention that the oral contract was too indefinite to be enforced, holding that the contract was sufficiently definite to enable it to fix the parties’ obligations and liabilities. The court also upheld the jury’s finding that the contract had been breached, and agreed that Jakalam was a prevailing party entitled to recover its attorney’s fees at trial and on appeal. Crisp Analytical Lab, L.L.C. v. Jakalam Properties, Ltd., 422 S.W.3d 85 (Tex. App. ‑‑ Dallas 2013, pet. denied).

Courts: Texas Intermediate Appellate Courts
Subject Matter: Business Litigation

By Levinger| January 13th, 2014|Comments Off