Description: This case is a breach of contract case involving a contract to purchase an ownership interest in an electric power plant. The defendant sought summary judgment on the basis that a release agreement between the parties released all claims brought by Brownsville. After hundreds of pages of briefing and multiple hearings over an 18-month period, the trial court granted defendant’s motion. Brownsville appealed, arguing that summary judgment was improper because its narrow interpretation of the release agreement as not releasing claims for breach of the parties’ purchase and sale agreement was reasonable. The court of appeals agreed, reversing the trial court and finding that Brownsville’s interpretation of the release agreement was correct.

This case was a negligence case brought against various defendants based on a catastrophic 18-wheeler crash that killed seven members of a Mexican family. The Defendants filed a summary judgment motion seeking to apply Mexican law. The motion was denied. The case later settled for a substantial sum.

This case arose after plaintiff became interested in purchasing a gas marketing company. Prior to borrowing $6 million to fund the purchase, plaintiff met with Reliant and received assurances that Reliant was entering into a lucrative contract with the gas marketing company. After plaintiff purchased the company based on Reliant’s assurances, Reliant refused to sign the contract, forcing the newly acquired gas marketing company to declare bankruptcy. Reliant moved for summary judgment on Plaintiff’s claims for fraud, negligent misrepresentation and promissory estoppels. The court denied the motion.

This case was a securities fraud case brought by plaintiffs against international investment bank and securities firm UBS Warburg. Plaintiffs merged their company with another company and accepted $43 million worth of the other company’s shares of stock as the sale price for the acquisition. After the transaction closed, various misrepresentations in the acquiring company’s financial statements came to light that caused the stock to plummet in value and the company to eventually be de-listed. UBS was the underwriter on the acquiring company’s IPO that had occurred shortly before it acquired the plaintiffs’ company. UBS filed a summary judgment motion arguing that it did not recklessly make any misrepresentations in the prospectus and other offering materials for the IPO and that it did not render substantial assistance to the acquiring company in carrying out its fraud.

This case was a securities fraud case brought by plaintiffs against international accounting firm PriceWaterhouseCoopers (“PWC”). Plaintiffs relied upon financial statements audited by PWC in deciding to merge their company with another company and accept $43 million worth of the other company’s shares of stock as the sale price for the acquisition. After the transaction closed, various misrepresentations in the acquiring company’s financial statements came to light that caused the stick to plummet in value and the company to eventually be de-listed. PWC filed a summary judgment motion arguing that it owed no duty to third parties such as plaintiffs because they were not with the “limited group” of persons entitled to rely on PWC’s work. Defendants also argued that any reliance by plaintiffs on the acquiring company’s financial statements was not reasonable.