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.