Representative Cases for Minority Investors

(Oil &Gas)  Represented minority shareholder in oil and gas production related company in Midland, Texas who contended he was improperly squeezed out of the business by the majority shareholder.  Diamond McCarthy filed the case alleging breach of fiduciary duty claims in state court in Midland, Texas, conducted extensive discovery and secured a confidential settlement on behalf of the minority owner before trial.  Solansky v. Solansky, et al., Cause No. CV48169.

(Software)  Represented the co-founder and 47% owner of ARGO Data Resources in Dallas.  After a six-week trial in Dallas state district court, the firm secured a court-ordered, mandatory dividend of $85 million awarded to the Company’s two shareholders based on jury findings that the majority owner had engaged in fraud, shareholder oppression and improper withholding of dividends. The jury verdict was overturned on appeal, and the appellate decision was upheld by the Texas Supreme Court.  Shagrithaya v. Martin, et al., Cause No. 07-15149-I.

(Trust Dispute)  Secured multi-million pre-trial buyout of minority owner’s substantial interest in a family business involving multiple trusts.  This buyout and settlement was achieved after Diamond McCarthy filed suit in Dallas state court, conducted substantial discovery, and secured a summary judgment ruling on the minority owner’s behalf holding that the General Partner and Trustee had breached his fiduciary duties. Pickens v. Pickens, et al., Cause No. 02-01105.

(Restaurants)  Obtained settlement and resolution of lawsuit filed in Dallas state court against a limited partner and founder of Dallas-based restaurant chain.  On behalf of the minority owner, Diamond McCarthy negotiated the resolution of all claims alleged in the lawsuit and secured a confidential buyout of the minority owner’s interest in the business. M. Crowd Restaurant Group, et. al. v. Michael Rodriguez, et. al., Cause No. CC-09-00965-G.

(Insurance)  Represented limited partner in insurance agency in litigation with the General Partner related to the value of limited partner’s minority ownership interest in the business. After filing suit in Tarrant County, Diamond McCarthy was able to secure a confidential settlement and buyout for the limited partner of his minority ownership interest in the company. Grob v. Texas Wasatch Insurance Holdings Group, LLC, et al., Cause No. 352-249603-10.

(Beer Distributorship)  Filed suit in state court in Houston for three limited partners in private company beer distributorship asserting claims that the company’s general partner had failed to pay these limited partners their fair share of the proceeds resulting from the sale of the business.  Diamond McCarthy secured a confidential settlement of all claims asserted on behalf of the minority owners before trial.  Joseph Polichino, et al. v. Hillman International Brands, Ltd. Et al. Cause No. 2004-346878.

(Real Estate)  Represented a group of tenants in common (TICs) who owned a residential apartment complex in Grand Prairie, Texas. The TICs purchased the property as a “like-kind exchange” pursuant to Section 1031 of the Internal Revenue Code. After non-payment for several months, the TICs asserted claims against the Master Tenant challenging its management of the apartment complex. Diamond McCarthy filed an involuntary bankruptcy proceeding against the company to protect the TICs. After filing the bankruptcy action, the firm successfully negotiated a settlement and resolution of all claims for the TICs with the Master Tenant. In Re Sequoia Forum LeaseCo, LLC, Cause No. 11-33449-bjh.

(Oil & Gas)  Represented investor group in oil and gas company, which had invested assets in what proved to be a Ponzi scheme. Diamond McCarthy filed an involuntary bankruptcy action against the company, which created a vehicle for bankruptcy trustee to file legal action against the company’s officers and directors.  This lawsuit by the trustee helped the company secure a recovery under a D&O Policy that generated gross proceeds of $2 million for distribution to the bankruptcy creditors.  In Re Shale Synergy, LLC, et al., Cause No. 10-31683-hdh.

(Investment Fund)  Represented minority owner in investment fund that made government-backed investments to develop low income housing in foreign markets. The minority owner was forced out of the business, and Diamond McCarthy secured a confidential settlement and buyout of the minority owner’s interest that avoided litigation.

(Heating and Cooling)  Represented limited partner in a heating and cooling service business who was fired and forced out of the company. Diamond McCarthy was co-counsel in this case for the limited partner and assisted him in achieving a confidential settlement and buyout of his minority ownership interest that avoided the need for trial. Shafer, et al. v. Moreno, Cause No. 141-246870-10.

With offices in Houston and Dallas, Diamond McCarthy LLP assists a variety of clients with their Texas Business Divorce matters throughout Texas, including Austin, San Antonio, Midland, Fort Worth, Galveston, Amarillo, Abilene, and Waco.

© 2022 Diamond McCarthy LLP | Disclaimer
2711 N. Haskell Avenue, Suite 3100, Dallas, TX 75204
| Phone: 214-389-5300
909 Fannin Street, 37th Floor, Houston, TX 77010
| Phone: 713-333-5100

Meet the Team | What you Need to Know | Practice Areas | About

Legal Web Development by
Zola Creative

Business Dispute News

The information provided on this site is not legal advice, and is not intended to be legal advice. You should consult an attorney for advice regarding your individual situation. The decision to hire an attorney is an important decision, and should not be based solely on advertising. We welcome your calls, letters and electronic mail, but contacting us does not create an attorney-client relationship. All attorney-client relationships that are formed with our law firm will be documented in a signed, written agreement. Please do not send any confidential information to us until an attorney-client relationship has been established.

Our prior results in other cases do not guarantee a similar outcome in a future case. The results we have obtained for our clients depend on a variety of factors that are unique to each representation and each set of facts.