Supreme Court of Texas Ruling Entitles HPTY Clients to Recover Millions

October 2014
Supreme Court of Texas

In Basic Capital Management, Inc. v. Dynex Commercial, Inc., the Supreme Court of Texas denied review in a case where HPTY clients will now be entitled to recover well in excess of $40 million dollars in light of the court’s ruling. HPTY partner Rob Gilbreath teamed up with Southern Methodist University School of Law Professor William V. Dorsaneo, III to respond to a petition for review filed by a former Texas Supreme Court justice. The Court called for full briefing on the issues in the case, which involved breach of a loan-commitment agreement. The case will now return to the trial court for rendition of judgment on damages and a recalculation of attorneys’ fees, costs, and pre- and post-judgment interest. 

This was the second time the case appeared in the Texas Supreme Court. The first time, the Court reversed a judgment adverse to HPTY’s clients, Basic Capital and related entities, holding that they could recover consequential damages for breach of a loan-commitment agreement. Basic Capital Mgt., Inc. v. Dynex Commercial, Inc., 348 S.W.3d 894 (Tex. 2011). After that ruling, Rob Gilbreath joined with Professor Dorsaneo to fight off the Dynex’s motion for rehearing, which argued that the Supreme Court’s ruling was inconsistent with the law in other states. The Supreme Court denied the motion for rehearing and sent the case back to the court of appeals to resolve remaining issues. The court of appeals ruled largely in Basic Capital’s favor. Basic Capital Mgt., Inc. v. Dynex Commercial, Inc., 402 S.W.3d 257 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2013, pet. denied). Dynex then sought review in the Supreme Court, contending that Basic Capital had released its claims and that the evidence was insufficient to support the jury’s damages findings. As noted, the Court denied the petition for review, meaning the case will go back to the trial court for rendition of judgment in Basic Capital’s favor. 

Attorneys

Practice Areas