Represented a gold-mining company in a decade-long dispute. The district court refused to recognize a $48 MM judgement from Mexico and instead found the judgement (i) is repugnant to the public policy of the State of Texas and the United States; (ii) conflicts with another final and conclusive judgment, and (iii) was not compatible with the requirements of due process of law. The losing party appealed, and Munsch Hardt served as lead counsel on the appeal to the Fifth Court of Appeals, where the appeal was dismissed.

Represented Electric Reliability Council of Texas, Inc. (“ERCOT”) in connection to the Chapter 15 bankruptcy proceeding commenced by Just Energy Group, Inc. (“Just Energy”) in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Texas. Just Energy, the largest independent retail energy provider in the State of Texas, was invoiced more than $280 MM by ERCOT following Winter Storm Uri. Just Energy filed a complaint against ERCOT seeking to void payment for electricity purchased. ERCOT successfully moved to have certain causes of action dismissed and was granted a motion for direct appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. Just Energy’s petitions for rehearing were denied and the adversary proceeding in the bankruptcy case is stayed. 

Represented an investment management company against a seller that was in breach of a purchase agreement for failing to properly construct buildings. The case included an arbitration, federal court case and state court case to resolve the issue. Munsch Hardt was involved in finalizing the termination of the Purchase Agreement and negotiating another real estate transaction among the parties as a part of a settlement.

Defending a lighting company in a patent infringement case involving six patents related to LED driver/dimmer technology. The Court ordered the plaintiff to reduce the number of asserted claims and inter partes reviews for the six patents are currently pending.

Representing a sublessee against an owner/landlord after the entity who arranged the sublease filed for bankruptcy, which led to our client’s lease being rejected. Munsch Hardt exposed improprieties in the case and our client sued the owner/landlord parties for conspiracy, tortious interference, attempting wrongful eviction and seeking declaratory relief with respect to its rights under the lease and sublease. After failing to get these charges dismissed, the owner/landlord parties counterclaimed. The counterclaims were initially dismissed, but have since been amended and discovery is now ongoing.

Defended a diabetes treatment company sued for patent infringement and misappropriation of trade secrets. Our team filed an interlocutory appeal and emergency motion to stay the district court’s injunction with the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The emergency stay was granted so that patient treatment could continue and the Court concluded that the plaintiff failed to meet the burden of proof in their case, and the district court’s injunction was reversed and remanded.

Represented a software company in the rights to a payroll tax processing software purchased in 2015. Following the purchase of the software, a company that previously held interest in a Transfer Agreement with our client filed a suit seeking declaration of rights to the software. Our client filed a counterclaim and the district court granted summary judgment in favor of our client and against the plaintiff on two counts of the Complaint. The case went to trial regarding the parties’ rights, and ended in a judgment in favor of our client.

Representing a global technology company in a breach of contract case stemming from a project to provide prison inmates with access to digital media for the Texas Department of Criminal Justice. After our client completed installation, the defendant defaulted on $22 MM in invoices for the work our client did. The case is ongoing.

Represented plaintiffs in a lawsuit arising from investments made by our clients in a limited partnership founded and managed by the Defendant, who solicited investments from our clients by means of untrue statements and failed to disclose material information in connection with the solicitation of those funds. After obtaining a final judgment in our favor for more than $8 MM after a motion for summary judgment for violations of the Texas Securities Act and breach of fiduciary duty, Defendant filed a motion for new trial. The motion was denied and Defendant appealed to the Dallas Court of Appeals. On February 7, 2024, the Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment of the trial court.

Defended a Fortune 500 company in a complex, multi-defendant contract and tort case brought by a natural gas processor alleging $15 MM in damages arising out of natural gas delivery during Winter Storm Uri. Days before trial was set to begin, the court granted six separate motions for summary judgment in our client’s favor based on, among other things, the filed-rate doctrine, the statute of limitations, and the economic loss rule, and entered a take-nothing judgment.