Dispute Over Sale of Gold Bars Ends With Fifth Circuit Affirmance of Jury Verdict Favoring Dillon Gage

February 29, 2016 in Case Summaries

Jeff Levinger successfully represented Dillon Gage Metals, a large wholesaler of rare coins and bullion, in its long-running dispute with the Gagosian Gallery, a prominent New York art gallery, over the acquisition of 100 bars of gold. In 2009, the Gallery paid $3 million to Stanford Coins & Bullion, a business owned by the now-disgraced financier Allen Stanford, to acquire the gold for a major art installation. SCB, in turn, ordered the gold from Dillon Gage. Before the transaction could be completed, however, SCB was placed into federal receivership, and when the Gallery did not receive the gold, it sued Dillon Gage on the theory that the Gallery was a third-party beneficiary of the sales contract between SCB and Dillon Gage. After a multi-day trial, a jury found that the Gallery was not a third-party beneficiary of the SCB-Dillon Gage contract. The Fifth Circuit affirmed the judgment in favor of Dillon Gage, agreeing with Levinger’s arguments that sufficient evidence supported the verdict and that the jury charge accurately expressed Texas law on third-party beneficiary status. Pre-War Art, Inc. v. Stanford Coins and Bullion, Inc., No. 1510033, 2016 WL 791042 (5th Cir. Feb. 29, 2016).

Courts: Federal Courts of Appeals
Subject Matter: Business Litigation

By Levinger| February 29th, 2016|Comments Off

Fifth Circuit Revives Antitrust Suit Against Monopolistic Broker of Veterinary Insurance

September 23, 2015 in Case Summaries

In a 2-1 opinion, the Fifth Circuit reversed the summary judgment dismissal of an antitrust suit brought by Levinger PC client Sanger Insurance Agency against HUB International, an insurance broker that sells professional liability and other types of insurance products to veterinarians across the country. Although the Court held that HUB’s anti-competitive conduct was exempt from federal antitrust scrutiny under the McCarran-Ferguson Act, it revived Sanger’s claims under the Texas Free Enterprise and Antitrust Act and various common law theories and remanded them for trial. Over the dissent of Judge Edith Jones, Judges Gregg Costa and Jerry Smith held that Sanger had established that it was sufficiently prepared to enter the market for selling veterinary insurance, and thus reversed the district court’s determination that Sanger lacked standing to challenge HUB’s conduct. Sanger Insurance Co. v. HUB Int’l, Ltd., 802 F.3d 732 (5th Cir. 2015)

Courts: Federal Courts of Appeals
Subject Matter: Business Litigation

By Levinger| September 23rd, 2015|Comments Off

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