Fryar Law Firm Appellate Victory

On March 31, 2011, the Fourteenth Court of Appeals in Houston, Texas overruled the appellant's motion for rehearing, which sought to overturn the December 28, 2010 opinion in favor of Fryar Law Firm's client in Vaughan v. Hartman, NO. 14-09-00590-CV (Tex. App.--Houston [14th Dist.] 2010). This was a breach of contract/commercial litigation action in which Fryar Law Firm represented the defendant. Fryar Law Firm had achieved summary judgment on claims, which had totaled in excess of one million dollars. Fryar Law Firm then achieved a favorable jury verdict on plaintiff's one remaining claim for approximately $400,000 in in April 2009. The plaintiff appealed, and Fryar Law Firm filed its briefs defending its trial court victory in March 2010. The Court of Appeals' opinion affirmed Fryar Law Firm's jury trial victory in all respects.

Fryar Law Firm Achieves Dismissal of Shareholder Oppression Lawsuit

On March 24, 2011, Fryar Law Firm obtained the dismissal of a shareholder oppression lawsuit asserted against our client in PCI-Products v. MLM, No. 2011-10850, in the 113th Judicial District Court, Harris County, Texas. The Plaintiff originally filed the action, claiming shareholder oppression, after the corporation's board of directors voted to replace the Plaintiff as president of the Company. The Plaintiff had been able to obtain a Temporary Restraining Order. Fryar Law Firm was then retained to take over the defense of the action. We filed motions to stay or dismiss based on the existence of an arbitration clause in the shareholders' agreement and on standing and jurisdictional defects and an extensive answer and special exceptions to the pleadings. See Fryar Law Firm's defensive pleadings. On the eve of the temporary injunction hearing, the Plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the entire action. The parties are expected ultimately to resolve the dispute by settlement or in arbitration.

Fryar Law Firm Files Usurpation of Corporate Opportunities Claims

On March 23, 2011, Fryar Law Firm was retained to take over as plaintiff's counsel in No. 10681-B; Williams v. Otcu, in the 198th Judicial District Court, Kerr County, Texas. Fryar Law Firm immediately filed a Second Amended Petition on behalf of the Plaintiff to bring derivative claims for usurpation of corporate opportunities, in addition to the shareholder oppression claims already on file. This case involved not only an attempt to squeeze-out the minority shareholder's interest in the corporation, but the closing down of the corporation and immediate reopening of exactly the same business in the name of another business entity owned by the controlling shareholder, but in which the Plaintiff had no ownership.

Fryar Law Firm Files New Shareholder Oppression Action

On March 15, 2011, Fryar Law Firm filed Pasagui v. Perez, No. 2011-16452, in the 113th Judicial District Court, Harris County, Texas. Fryar Law Firm is representing a minority shareholder who founded a large Texas corporation that provides contract maid and janitorial services to hotels and businesses. The Petition alleges that Fryar Law Firm's client was squeezed out in a particularly egregious pattern of oppressive conduct. Fryar Law Firm will be seeking a forced buy-out, damages and other equitable relief. Read Shareholder Oppression Petition.

Fryar Law Firm Defeats Motion for Sanctions

Fryar Law Firm is not afraid to advance novel legal theories. Following the successful settlement of Fiongos v. Cahaba, Austin attorney Fred Coogan pursued a motion for sanctions for frivolous lawsuit against Fryar Law Firm based on the claims that had been asserted against his clients Heep Petroleum, Inc. and Buda Resources, Inc.-owned by Austin businessman Boone Heep. These defendants had been sued on the theory of knowing participation in a breach of fiduciary duties. In a hearing on their motion on March 14, 2010, the 55th Judicial District Court, Harris County, Texas, ruled from the bench that Fryar Law Firm's briefing of the law was correct and summarily denied Coogan's and Heep's motion for sanctions. See Fryar Law Firms Brief on the Sanctions Motion. Eric Fryar had offered to settle the sanctions motion for the cost of a tank of gas to get Coogan and Heep back to Austin. They should have taken that deal.

Fryar Law Firm Achieves Settlement of Fiongos v. Cahaba

On February 25, 2011, Fryar Law Firm obtained a settlement for its client in Fiongos v. Cahaba, No. 2009-51481, in the 55th Judicial District Court, Harris County, Texas. Fryar Law Firm represented the plaintiff in this lawsuit involving claims of breach of contract and breach of fiduciary duties. Fryar Law Firm originally filed a Petition on behalf of its client in August of 2009. In January 2011, the defendants filed a motion for summary judgment. Fryar Law Firm filed a response on February 7, 2011 demonstrating the basis of fiduciary duties based on an oral agreement to jointly market an oil and gas prospect. While the motion was pending before the court, the parties reached a complete settlement, the terms of which are confidential.

Oral Argument in Sherbert & Campbell v. Mostyn

On February 8, 2011, Eric Fryar appeared before the First Court of Appeals in Houston Texas to argue the appeal of Sherbert & Campbell v. Mostyn, No. 01-09-00922-CV, in the First Court of Appeals, Houston, Texas. Fryar Law Firm represents the former partners in a Texas general partnership, which was dissolved in 1998. The lawsuit originally filed in the 215th District Court, Harris County, Texas, alleges that certain significant assets of the partnership were misappropriated by the other partner during winding up of the partnership affairs. The trial court granted summary judgment based on the statute of limitations. Fryar Law Firm appealed. The oral argument primarily dealt with very significant issues of Texas law regarding the application of the statute of limitations to the winding up of a partnership and the effect of fiduciary duties on the application of the discovery rule. Read Fryar Law Firm's Appellant's Brief and Reply Brief on these issues to the Court of Appeal.

Fryar Law Firm Achieves Settlement in Messer v. Hartman

On January 26, 2011, Fryar Law Firm achieved a settlement of all claims of behalf of its client in Messer v. Hartman Income REIT, No. DC-09-15724-B, in the 44th District Court, Dallas County, Texas. This was a breach of contract commercial dispute in which Fryar Law Firm represented the defendant. The case arose out of a real estate development project, which had to be shut down because of a massive fraud perpetrated by the promoter. The plaintiff was the general contractor on the project, which sued for over $500,000 on the terminated contract and additional claims totalling almost $1 million. Fryar Law Firm defended the action and filed a counterclaim based on the plaintiff's apparent complicity in the fraud. Ultimately, Fryar Law Firm was able to obtain a complete settlement of the action for $150,000.

Significant Ruling in Fryar Law Firm's Case

On January, 13, 2011, the United States Bankruptcy Court of the Southern District of Texas (Judge Bohm) issued a very significant and thoughtful opinion addressing important issues in Delaware and Texas shareholder oppression law. Fryar Law Firm originally filed Schermerhorn v. Centurytel in state court in Houston, Texas. Fryar Law Firm and its co-counsel represent former minority shareholders of SkyComm Technologies, Inc. (a Delaware corporation). Prior to the filing of the suit, SkyComm's wholly-owned subsidiary, Skyport Global Communications, Inc. (a Texas corporation) had been in bankruptcy and had been merged with SkyComm, leaving Skyport as the surviving corporation and extinguishing the shares of the SkyComm shareholders. Fryar Law Firm's lawsuit pleaded various claims for breach of fiduciary duties, shareholder oppression, and fraud against certain former directors and controlling shareholders of SkyComm. The defendant's removed the case to the bankruptcy court and moved to dismiss all claims as barred by the bankruptcy. In ruling on the motion, the Bankruptcy Court had to decide many important issues dealing with the effect of a bankruptcy on shareholder oppression claims and whether such claims are direct or derivative. While the motion was granted as to certain claims brought by the plaintiffs, the Court held that the majority of the claims were direct claims and survived the bankruptcy. Those claims will be remanded to state court.

Fryar Law Firm Achieves Appellate Victory

On December 28, 2010, the Fourteenth Court of Appeals in Houston, Texas handed down an opinion in favor of Fryar Law Firm's client in Vaughan v. Hartman, NO. 14-09-00590-CV (Tex. App.--Houston [14th Dist.] 2010). This was a breach of contract/commercial litigation action in which Fryar Law Firm represented the defendant. The plaintiff had originally brought suit in the 333rd District Court, Harris County, Texas, seeking over one million dollars in unpaid commissions and approximately $400,000 in "backend participation" payments. Fryar Law Firm obtained a summary judgment on all the plaintiff's claims in February 2008, except the backend participation claim. The case went to trial in April 2009, with Fryar Law Firm defending the plaintiff's remaining claim on the grounds that the plaintiff had materially breached the contract and was not entitled to further payment. The jury found in favor of Fryar Law Firm's client. The plaintiff appealed, and Fryar Law Firm filed its briefs defending its trial victory in March 2010. The Court of Appeals' opinion affirms Fryar Law Firm's victory in the trial court in all respects.

Fryar Law Firm Achieves Settlement in Tevis v. D'Ercole

On November 29, 2010, Fryar Law Firm obtained a settlement for its client in Tevis v. D'Ercole, No. 2009-11208 in the 11th District Court, Harris County, Texas. This was a shareholder oppression case in which Fryar Law Firm represented the plaintiff minority shareholder. Fryar Law Firm filed a minority shareholder oppression lawsuit on behalf of its client on February 21, 2009, and after extensive discovery moved for summary judgment in favor of the plaintiff's claims on October 29, 2010. After a mediation, Fryar Law Firm obtained a settlement for its client, the terms of which are confidential. Our client graciously praised Fryar Law Firm's efforts on his behalf.

Fryar Law Firm Achieves Settlement in Scruggs v. Reber

On September 15, 2010, the Court entered a final judgement effectuating a settlement of Cause No. 2009-10216-16; Michael Scruggs v. Reber, Allen, and Zingenuity, Inc., in the 16th Judicial District Court, Denton County, Texas. This was a shareholder oppression case in which Fryar Law Firm represented the two majority shareholder defendants. The minority shareholder had originally filed suit for shareholder oppression and other claims. Fryar Law Firm appeared on behalf of the two individual defendants. The corporation retained separate counsel. Both the corporation and Fryar Law Firm's clients filed counterclaims and third-party actions. All of the claims by and against the minority shareholder have now been settled. Fryar Law Firm will remain in this case representing both the individuals and the corporation on the remaining claims for malpractice and breach of fiduciary duties against the lawyer who had represented both the corporation and the minority shareholder at the time the company was formed until the lawsuit was filed.