Texas Litigation Funder Sues Baker Donelson Over Dispute With Plaintiffs Firm
Duncan Litigation Investments alleged in a petition filed Tuesday that it lost out on millions because of Baker, Donelson, Bearman, Caldwell & Berkowitz's representation in a suit against a plaintiffs firm.
July 30, 2019 at 05:45 PM
3 minute read
A Texas litigation funding company has sued Baker, Donelson, Bearman, Caldwell & Berkowitz, alleging the firm mishandled an arbitration, ruining its chances of recovering up to $47.9 million from a plaintiffs firm.
Duncan Litigation Investments (DLI) alleged in a negligence suit filed on Tuesday in State District Court in Harris County that Baker Donelson failed to secure a proper tolling agreement in underlying litigation with an unidentified plaintiffs firm, which meant that it could not recover damages in an arbitration.
The funding company is seeking more than $1 million from Baker Donelson, an Am Law 100 firm with an office in Houston.
A firm representative did not respond to a request for a comment on the suit. Neither did Houston managing shareholder Bradley Chambers.
As alleged in the petition, DLI was formed to invest in a docket of mass-tort suits against BP and other defendants following the Deepwater Horizon explosion in 2010.
The funding company alleged it entered into a contract in 2010 with a plaintiffs attorney and his firm, which called for DLI to invest up to $6 million in exchange for half of the firm's legal fees from the BP docket.
DLI put in more than $5.8 million, the petition said, but “due to the [plaintiffs] firm's actionable misconduct,” DLI lost its entire investment and sustained other damages.
So in 2013, the funding company hired Baker Donelson to investigate bringing civil suits against the plaintiffs firm and its business associates, the petition said.
“Throughout the process, Baker Donelson repeatedly assured DLI that it did not face any issues with the statute of limitations because, according to Baker Donelson, DLI had a tolling agreement with the [plaintiffs] firm,” under which the plaintiffs firm waived statute of limitations, the petition said.
However, the tolling agreement was between the plaintiffs firm and the owner of DLI—rather than DLI itself—and DLI was the party to the contract with the plaintiffs firm, the petition alleged.
DLI sued the plaintiffs firm in February 2018, and the underlying litigation was heard by an arbitration panel in May. In July, the arbitration panel found facts sufficient to support a recovery of damages, but also found that all of DLI's claims were barred by limitations, DLI's petition said.
“Specifically, the panel wrote: 'The panel members are at a loss to understand why DLI was never included in any of the tolling agreements, particularly given that it must have been clear to … counsel that DLI was the owner of these important potential claims,” the funding company alleged.
The plaintiff alleged it would have been awarded between $9.2 million and $47.9 million if Baker Donelson had not failed to procure a tolling agreement for the funding company or warn it of the statute of limitations in time. DLI is seeking damages equal to the amount it would have recovered in the arbitration if its claims had not been time-barred.
D. John Neese Jr., a partner at Meade & Neese in Houston who represents DLI, did not immediately return a call seeking comment Tuesday.
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 AllAdvising 'Capital-Intensive Spaces' Fuels Corporate Practice Growth For Haynes and Boone
4 minute readHomegrown Texas Law Firms Expanded Outside the Lone Star State in 2024 As Out-of-State Firms Moved In
5 minute readEnergy Lawyers Working in Texas Expect Strong Demand to Continue in 2025 Across Energy Sector
6 minute readTrending Stories
- 1'Largest Retail Data Breach in History'? Hot Topic and Affiliated Brands Sued for Alleged Failure to Prevent Data Breach Linked to Snowflake Software
- 2Former President of New York State Bar, and the New York Bar Foundation, Dies As He Entered 70th Year as Attorney
- 3Legal Advocates in Uproar Upon Release of Footage Showing CO's Beat Black Inmate Before His Death
- 4Longtime Baker & Hostetler Partner, Former White House Counsel David Rivkin Dies at 68
- 5Court System Seeks Public Comment on E-Filing for Annual Report
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