A Texas jury granted a $138 million verdict in favor of a Switzerland citizen in a case against his business partner, alleging breach of contract and promissory estoppel, among the claims.

The eight-year-long case, filed in the U.S. District’s Southern Division, hinged on oral agreements in business transactions between Carlo Civelli, the plaintiff, and his longtime business partner Phillip Mulacek, a Texas resident.

After a six-week trial, the jury deliberated for two-and-a-half hours—finding in favor of Civelli on all claims.

Attorneys from Munsch Hardt Kopf & Harr and the Martin Walton Law Firm represented Civello.

One of those claims, in which the jury awarded $72 million in damages, was based on a net-profit interest transaction, in which Civelli said he was owed a percentage of the proceeds from the sale of a property. Mulacek disputed the amount of the funds, and alleged Civelli was not owed the funds because he had withheld the money.

The jury found Mulacek owed those funds, and additional damages in other transactions.

Dick Schwartz, an attorney with Munsch Hardt Kopf & Harr and co-lead counsel on the case, said the key to success when dealing with involving oral agreements was establishing the plaintiff's credibility.

Also key was an investigation into a letter of wishes—that surfaced three years into the trial—that the Mulaceks alleged was written by Civelli and named him as the trustee, according to Schwartz.

The firm investigated the metadata of the document and CCTV footage of the building at the time that Mulaceck’s nephew said he found the document, which cast doubt on the letter's authenticity.

“It was a case where we relied upon oral agreements and the importance of handshakes in business,” Schwartz said in an interview with Texas Lawyer. “The other side criticized handshakes and Mr. Civelli for doing handshake deals. I think the jury found that handshakes are still good.”

Paul Yetter, a founding partner at Yetter Coleman who represented the Mulacecks, told Texas Lawyer they plan to appeal.

“Our clients very much appreciate the jury’s service and respect their decision,” Yetter said via email. “We believe any judgment would cut the verdict amounts substantially, however, for legal reasons that we look forward to presenting to the court.”

To read more, click here.