Texas Appeals Court Tosses Legal Malpractice Case Against Fried Frank and New York Partner
A Texas appellate court has thrown out a legal malpractice case against Fried Frank and one of its New York-based tax partners after finding a former client could not establish jurisdiction in the Lone Star State.
August 04, 2017 at 04:00 PM
4 minute read
A Texas appellate court has thrown out a legal malpractice case against Fried Frank and one of its New York-based tax partners after finding a former client could not establish jurisdiction in the Lone Star State even though the plaintiff moved to Texas and the defendant lawyer held a meeting in Dallas.
The recent decision in Fried Frank Shriver & Jacobson v. Millennium Chemicals by Dallas' Fifth Court of Appeals reverses a trial court decision rejecting an argument by the law firm and tax partner Richard A. Wolfe that they could not be sued in Texas because the conflict had no connection to the state.
Millennium, at the time based in New Jersey, was represented by Fried Frank and Wolfe in its “demerger” from its parent company Hanson. A dispute arose between Millennium and Hanson over a $65 million tax deduction that had been disallowed by the IRS prior to the demerger. Hanson, which was also represented by Fried Frank and Wolfe, was later audited and settled with the IRS. But Millennium alleged Fried Frank and Wolfe failed to inform them of the $65 million in expenditures by Hanson. Millennium sued Fried Frank and Wolfe in a Dallas state district court alleging fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, and legal malpractice, specifically claiming they omitted facts that led Millennium to sign a tax benefits agreement with Hanson that deprived them of tax benefit recovery rights and that the defendants took positions adverse to Millennium.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllOvertime Rewind: Texas Court Ruling Unravels FLSA Salary Level Increases
4 minute readDivided 5th Circuit Shoots Down Nasdaq Diversity Rules
Uvalde Shooting 'Fresh in Everyone's Mind:' Lone Dissenting Judge Disagrees with School's Disciplinary Decision Over Pellet Gun
Amazon, SpaceX Press Constitutional Challenges to NLRB at 5th Circuit
Trending Stories
- 1Call for Nominations: Elite Trial Lawyers 2025
- 2Senate Judiciary Dems Release Report on Supreme Court Ethics
- 3Senate Confirms Last 2 of Biden's California Judicial Nominees
- 4Morrison & Foerster Doles Out Year-End and Special Bonuses, Raises Base Compensation for Associates
- 5Tom Girardi to Surrender to Federal Authorities on Jan. 7
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250