Firm Prevails for Client in Major Dallas Development Project

 
iStock-589102284.jpg

←back to cases

Brewer, Attorneys & Counselors assisted a client with advancing a major, downtown Dallas development project that now plays a central role in the city’s urban renaissance and revitalization. The firm achieved a court victory that resulted in a settlement, which paved the way for the Forty Five Ten luxury retail boutique to open its doors along historic Main Street. 

The firm successfully represented defendants in FC WP Building LLC v. Headington Realty and Capital LLC, Elm at Stoneplace Holdings, LLC, Headington Resources, Inc. and Dallas Demolition Co. II, filed in July 2015 in Dallas County District Court, 68th Judicial District. 

The suit was filed by an affiliate of real estate company Forest City, FC WP Building LLC. Plaintiffs’ alleged that the development of Forty Five Ten would harm the neighboring Wilson Building, owned by the affiliate of Forest City. 

Brewer attorneys argued there was no legal basis for the lawsuit and that it was brought in bad faith. At the same time, the firm’s public relations team worked to promote the client’s interests with media outlets such as The Dallas Morning News and Dallas Business Journal.

“In Texas, you are allowed to develop your property and utilize it to its best effect.”
— Partner William Brewer told the Dallas Business Journal.

The court granted summary judgment for the Firm’s claims and dismissed plaintiff’s nuisance claims that alleged the new building resulted in the denial of access, light and a view for the Wilson Building. 

The parties agreed to dismiss the case in July 2017. That action allowed the ambitious project to move forward – a project that had been warmly embraced by the City of Dallas Urban Design Peer Review Panel. Forty Five Ten opened in late 2016 to great acclaim, attracting national attention from publications such as Vogue magazine.

Related NewS

 

Firm Prevails in Multimillion Dollar Trade Secrets Jury Trial for Client FLIR

 
shutterstock_140867215.jpg

←back to cases

A years-long dispute over infrared camera technology culminated in a jury trial victory for Brewer, Attorney & Counselors’ client, the infrared technology company FLIR Systems, Inc. 

In 2007, Raytheon sued FLIR and its wholly-owned subsidiary, Indigo Systems Corporation, for hundreds of millions of dollars in damages for the alleged misappropriation of 31 alleged trade secrets relating to the production of infrared cameras. 

During a 17-day trial in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, FLIR introduced evidence of numerous patents and public disclosures to disprove the existence of valid trade secrets. FLIR employees and other industry witnesses also demonstrated that Raytheon’s misappropriation claims were without merit. 

In addition, FLIR provided documentation of the lengthy brainstorming and experimentation FLIR employees undertook to develop its assembly processes independently. The evidence also demonstrated that the parties used dramatically different recipes. 

On November 24, 2014, an 11-person jury deliberated for just a few hours before siding with FLIR. The jury determined unanimously that FLIR did not misappropriate any trade secrets, as had been alleged. Furthermore, the jury found that 27 of the 31 alleged trade secrets were, in fact, not trade secrets. Importantly, Raytheon was entitled to no damages from FLIR and Indigo. 

The jury verdict validated FLIR’s position that Raytheon lacked valid trade secrets, and that FLIR independently developed its infrared camera technology and processes. FLIR’s position was further validated first by the trial court’s denial of Raytheon’s post-trial motions, and then by the United States Court of Appeals for The Federal Circuit, which affirmed the jury verdict by denying Raytheon’s post-trial motions. The Federal Circuit published its precedential opinion on July 12, 2018. 

The case was titled Raytheon Company v. Indigo Systems Corp., et al.

Related News

 

3M Prevails Against Meda AB in Sale of 3M European Pharmaceutical Business Case

 
shutterstock_47795860.jpg

←back to cases

Brewer, Attorneys & Counselors successfully represented 3M in trial proceedings relating to the $854 million sale of its European pharmaceutical business to Meda AB (“Meda”), a Sweden-based global pharmaceutical company. 

The case was resolved in 3M’s favor on every count, as the court found that the company honored its contractual obligations in connection with the sale of the business. In so doing, the court denied an estimated $200 million in damages being sought by Meda. 

Meda alleged that 3M’s failure to disclose a non-public provision of a document produced by France’s drug-pricing authority caused Meda to overpay for the business by more than $200 million. Plaintiff further alleged that 3M failed to make certain disclosures regarding the potential re-pricing of a cardiac drug known as Tambocor in most of the world and Flecaine in France. The drug was included in the portfolio of assets acquired by Meda in the transaction, dated November 8, 2006. 

Following a nine-day bench trial, the court’s decision confirmed that 3M acted appropriately in connection with the sale of the business. The opinion validated that 3M provided Meda with access to all the critical information it required to assess the viability of this business. 

As the opinion noted, such pricing adjustments are important because in France “the government provides reimbursement for the price of over 90% of drugs on the market…one of the most important objectives of pharmaceutical companies introducing a drug to market is to convince the French government to agree to a high reimbursement price.” 

3M successfully proved that Meda should have known about any pricing adjustments due to the availability of public information, that the company appropriately prepared offering materials, and that Meda failed to exercise due diligence in connection with its pursuit of the business. 

The court wrote, “…Meda’s diligence related to drug pricing was not thorough or meticulous.” Significantly, Meda never took full advantage of an electronic “data room” established by 3M that included approximately 8,800 documents for the benefit of potential purchasers of the business. 

“In short, although Meda was provided with a significant resource to conduct due diligence, the Court finds that it did not take full advantage of that resource, nor did it engage in diligence regarding drug pricing in a careful or thorough manner,” wrote Judge Nathan. 

Partner William Brewer said that the case outcome was “an important validation of 3M’s business procedures and confirms that the company acted in full compliance with the legal and regulatory requirements in connection with this transaction.”

Related News 

 

 

Firm Prevails in High-Profile Hawaii Edition Hotel Management Dispute

 
iStock-514630022.jpg

←back to cases

Brewer, Attorneys & Counselors has represented internationally known hotel management companies, owners, developers, franchisors, and investors in some of the highest-profile cases in the industry. 

Not only has the firm’s work in this area changed the state of the law, but it has resulted in the formulation of creative solutions to myriad problems confronting the industry. 

For example, in M Waikiki LLC v. Marriott International, the firm represented the owner of a Honolulu, Hawaii, resort in connection with the 2011 termination of a long-term hotel management agreement with Edition, the joint lifestyle hotel brand of Marriott International and Ian Schrager. 

The lawsuit alleged that after the hotel was opened as the first Edition brand hotel in late 2010, it suffered from poor occupancy, a brand name with virtually no identity, and Marriott’s unwillingness to control expenses. According to the owner, during a three-month period of May to July 2011, the hotel sustained staggering operating losses of $1.9 million.

“We believed that promises made during the launch of Edition were broken - leaving our client with significant damages which were further compounded by Marriott’s inability to effectively manage the property. Therefore, our client sought to remove Marriott from the management of the hotel.”
— William A. Brewer III

The lawsuit was filed by owner M Waikiki LLC in New York Supreme Court on May 26, 2011. 

As a result, Edition was ousted from the property and a new management company was installed at the resort. The firm then represented the owner as special litigation counsel in bankruptcy, including a weeklong estimation hearing. The firm also represented its client’s interests in the public arena, generating favorable media coverage from outlets such as The Wall Street Journal, Reuters, and local Hawaii news outlets. 

In August 2011, The Wall Street Journal reported that the owner made a dramatic, early morning move to install new management. The firm maintained that the owner had the legal right to take action, a peaceful transition that positioned the hotel for future success. 

The hotel was renamed The Modern Honolulu. Brewer, Attorneys & Counselors directed a PR campaign to promote the new direction of the hotel. That campaign helped the client generate local and national visibility for the property, leading to increased exposure, reservations, and business opportunities. 

Industry trade publication Travel Weekly highlighted the case in an article about hotel owners ousting hotel operators in high-profile hotel management disputes. In that article, Brewer commented that with many high-profile legal decisions going against major brands, owners may now feel more comfortable with going to court to push out faltering managers. 

The case helped establish the rights and responsibilities of all parties involved in these types of disputes.

Related News

 

3M Resolves Environmental Lawsuit Involving States of Guernsey

 
iStock-183834847.jpg

←back to cases

Brewer, Attorneys & Counselors directed a legal team that planned, filed, and ultimately prevailed in a three-year case against the States of Guernsey in 3M UK v. States of Guernsey. 

The case centered on Guernsey’s use of 3M Light Water Brand Aqueous Film-Forming Foam (AFFF) and allegations that the 3M product polluted the island’s drinking water. 

The trial began on January 18, 2016, in the High Court of Justice for England and Wales, Queen’s Bench Division, Commercial Court in London. 

At trial, 3M successfully demonstrated that Guernsey failed to follow safety instructions and routinely discharged AFFF into the environment. 3M also presented evidence that the presence of perfluorochemicals (PFCs) in Guernsey presented no harm to the community or environment. It was also demonstrated through witness testimony that 3M acted responsibly in the sale and production of the AFFF products. 

Three weeks into the trial, on February 4, 2016, Guernsey dismissed its claims with prejudice and agreed to make a substantial contribution to 3M’s legal costs.

Related News