News Coverage
Dallas Trial Lawyer Trey Branham Discusses Excessive Withdrawals From Atmos Customers’ Auto-Pay Accounts Print E-mail

In this interview with KLIF-AM's Kurt Gilchrist, Dallas trial attorney Charles "Trey" Branham III discusses the news story of Atmos Energy inadvertently making excessive withdrawals from the auto-pay accounts of thousands of its natural gas customers. According to media reports, the major public utility made excessive withdrawals from nearly 40,000 customer accounts. "When you sign up for auto-pay that comes out of your account, that is going to be governed by a document that the customer has signed. What their rights are, or -- more candidly, at this point -- are not, is going to be governed by that contract. It wouldn't surprise me to see that there's an arbitration clause in it, which would prevent you from going to a courtroom. You might have to go to an arbitrator. There may be a class-action waiver. In situations like this ... it will be hard to justify paying a lawyer if the only damages are $400. If Atmos doesn't come back, and make things right -- like they said they would do, to their credit -- these people's rights will be defined by the contact they signed."


 
Dallas Attorney Trey Branham Discusses Dallas Police Computer Use While Driving Print E-mail

In this interview on NBC 5 (KXAS-TV), Dallas plaintiff’s attorney Charles “Trey” Branham III says the City of Dallas would benefit from detailed rules to govern when police officers can type on their mobile computers while driving. NBC 5’s Scott Friedman reports that cities like Arlington and Fort Worth have specific guidelines to limit the use of electronic devices by officers who are driving, while the City of Dallas doesn’t. When asked what his advice to the City of Dallas would be, Mr. Branham tells Friedman, “Get real specific (in developing these rules). What’s the harm? You can make exceptions and you can make specific exceptions, if you feel like you need them, but there’s no harm at all in being very specific about what you want your officers doing, and what you don’t want them doing.”

 

 
Trey Branham Discusses Overtime Lawsuit Print E-mail

In this interview with KLIF-AM radio show host Kurt Gilchrist, Dallas trial attorney Charles “Trey” Branham III discusses the requirements for employers to pay overtime under federal law and the various rights and remedies for individuals who are not receiving overtime. As an example, Trey and the host discuss, as an example, a current case in which Chicago Police Officers have instituted a class action for failing to pay overtime for off the clock work, including the use of cellular phones and pagers. "Employees who are working off the clock are entitled to pay under Federal Law," say Branham, founder of Branham Law, LLP. "We handle these cases all the time and I am very confident that that officer will win his lawsuit as the law is clear."

 

 
Dallas Securities Lawyer Trey Branham Discusses AIG Suit Controversy Print E-mail

Originally aired on KLIF-AM (570 AM), Thursday, 10 January 2013

 

In this interview with KLIF-AM’s Kurt Gilchrist, Dallas securities attorney Trey Branham says the media explosion over AIG considering a lawsuit against the U.S. government that saved it was largely overblown. According to media accounts, former AIG CEO and shareholder Maurice "Hank" Greenberg has sued the government for $25 billion in a derivative case,

claiming the terms of the federal bailout of AIG were too costly, and he's asked AIG's board of directors to join his suit. Says Branham: “The (AIG) board of directors didn’t have any choice but to listen to Mr. Greenberg, because they have an obligation to shareholders to consider claims like this, regardless of whether they decide that the claims are valid or not.” If the board didn’t consider the claims, it could have faced charges of breach of fiduciary duty, Branham says.

 

 

 
Trey Branham Quoted in Law360 Over AIG Suit Print E-mail
AIG 's Retreat From Starr Suit Seen As Only Real Option

 

By Bibeka Shrestha

Law360, New York (January 09, 2013, 7:59 PM ET) -- American International Group Inc. made a smart move Wednesday by shunning Starr International Co.'s $25 billion lawsuit against the government, according to experts, who say the heavy reputational costs associated with partnering up with Starr far outweighed any benefits.

Under much public scrutiny, AIG's board of directors decided not to stand behind former chief Maurice "Hank" Greenberg and Starr in their legal challenge to aspects of the U.S. government's bailout of the insurer during the financial crisis.

Starr — which was AIG's largest shareholder when the government grabbed an 80 percent stake in AIG — is arguing that the U.S. Treasury Department and the Federal ReserveBank of New York violated the Fifth Amendment by not providing just compensation while seizing private property.

Trey Branham, a securities lawyer at Branham Law LLP, said AIG had no choice but to consider joining the suit, even as the insurance giant runs a massive public relations campaign thanking taxpayers for its financial rescue in 2008. Actually pursuing the suit against the government, though, would come as a major surprise, Branham said.

"From a practical perspective, they couldn't," Branham said. "From a legal perspective, the board [believed] they didn't do anything wrong. They cut the best deal they could. They didn't hurt the company. In fact, they saved it."

Taking up Starr's lawsuit over the bailout might have had dire consequences for AIG and its current board, according to John James, a professor and executive director of the Center for Global Governance, Reporting and Regulation at Pace University.

"The reputational risk here is in the billions," James said. "If I were a shareholder, I'd sue them for failing to protect my fiduciary interest by taking an action which endangered the company's reputation."

Starr brought the lawsuit in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims in November 2011, making derivative claims on AIG's behalf, as well as direct claims against the government on behalf of itself and other similarly situated shareholders.

In a Tuesday statement confirming that its board would mull joining the lawsuit, AIG said that if it didn't join Starr's suit and Starr prevailed or raked in a substantial settlement on its direct claims, the insurer would not get a piece of that recovery.

AIG said its board had an obligation to seriously consider Starr's demand and respond in a way that fit the company's best interests. The insurer could have taken over the claims, allowed Starr to pursue the claims on the company's behalf or prevented Starr from prosecuting the claims, a decision AIG acknowledged Starr would likely challenge.

If AIG's directors went with the first option, shareholders could have accused the board of taking unnecessary reputational risks, according to James.

"The present shareholders are the main concern of the current board, not money but the shareholders' value," James said.

Branham agreed with James that some shareholders could have taken legal action against the AIG board for joining Starr's suit.

"If the board had made that decision, I think the suit against the board then becomes a much better one," Branham said. "Then you really are hurting the company."

Now that AIG has decided to oppose Starr's derivative claims, Starr will likely be arguing that the the board of directors has breached its fiduciary duties to shareholders by not taking up the claims, according to Branham.

On Tuesday, AIG said it would make its decision in the next few weeks, but wound up acting much more quickly, after lawmakers and other critics lambasted the company for entertaining the idea of suing the government over the bailout.

Steve Miller, chairman of the AIG board, said Wednesday that the board had properly executed its fiduciary and legal obligations to AIG and its shareholders by considering and ultimately refusing Starr's demand.

According to Miller, AIG has returned $205 billion to taxpayers since the bailout, including a profit of $22.7 billion.

"We have kept our promise to rebuild this great company, repay every dollar American invested in us, and deliver a profit to those who put our trust in us," Miller said. "We continue to thank America for its support."
 
Trey Branham Named 2012 Super Lawyer Print E-mail
Dalllas business attorney Charles W. “Trey” Branham has earned a place on the 2012 Texas Super Lawyers list, an honor reserved for less than 5 percent of all attorneys in the state.

This is Mr. Branham’s second consecutive appearance on the Texas Super Lawyers list, which is produced by Thomson Reuters legal division and highlights the legal profession’s most-respected attorneys in Texas. The 2012 list appears in Texas Super Lawyers magazine and the October issue of Texas Monthly.

 

Honored attorneys in the Texas Super Lawyers list are nominated by other lawyers who have personally witnessed them in action. The final selections are made after a review of nominees by Texas Super Lawyers’ research staff, which considers the attorneys’ legal accomplishments and contributions to the community.

“I take great pride in the work I do for my clients, who are engaged in a wide range of legal issues, from complex commercial disputes to class-action lawsuits to compensation for catastrophic injuries,” says Mr. Branham, founder of Branham Law LLP. “It’s nice to see the efforts for my clients have been noticed by the same lawyers who I work with and against on a daily basis.”

 

Mr. Branham, who was listed among Texas’ most promising young lawyers in the Texas Rising Stars list from 2007-2010, represents clients on both sides of the docket.During the course of his 13 year legal career, he has handled more than 40 courtroom trials in jurisdictions across the country, including Texas, California, Florida, Massachusetts, Missouri, South Carolina, and Illinois.

Branham Law provides clients with a broad range of practice areas, including labor and employment litigation, partnership and shareholders’ rights, corporate governance and officer and director liability and catastrophic injury litigation.

 

Dallas-based Branham Law LLP represents clients in a variety of commercial litigation matters, as well as helping individuals in catastrophic personal injury claims. Led by noted courtroom lawyer Trey Branham, the firm provides extensive legal expertise and exceptional value for every client.

 
Cinemark seeking $200M to pay existing debt Print E-mail

Cinemark USA Inc., a subsidiary of Plano-based Cinemark Holdings Inc. (NYSE: CNK), has announced a private offering of $200 million in senior subordinated notes due in 2021, with plans to use the money to pay off $157 million in debt coming due in the next two years.

 

Cinemark did not return several calls seeking additional information.

 

Trey Branham, managing partner at the Dallas-based law offices of Goldfarb Branham LLP, said there are two reasons a company would refinance its debt in this way.

 

Click here to read the full story. 

 
SWS Group defends its cash pursuit Print E-mail

To say the last year has been tumultuous for SWS Group Inc. may not give proper respect to tumult.

 

Since last summer, the Dallas brokerage and banking fixture has parted ways with two leading executives, canceled a critical debt offering, accepted a regulatory order to improve its banking unit and paid two big regulatory fines for alleged brokerage violations.

 

The company's rocky ride may not be over.

 

In need of capital to shore up its bank, the parent company of Southwest Securities Inc. and Southwest Securities FSB recently struck a deal with two of the biggest names in North Texas business circles for $100 million in lifeblood cash.

 

Some current shareholders complain that their stakes in SWS Group would be heavily diluted if the proposed deal closes later this year. They question whether the deal should go through at all.

 

"I'm scratching my head trying to figure out what is going on," said Phil Frohlich, founder of Prescott Group Capital Management, a Tulsa, Okla.-based asset manager that is SWS Group's largest shareholder, with a stake of 9.2 percent as of Dec. 31.

 

"The concept is good: bringing in industry players that have great experience," he said. "But if you look at the big-picture outcome of the deal, I think the result is completely absurd."

 

He said the deal with outside investors, coupled with a canceled debt offering in December, constituted "two strikes" against the current management team.

 

SWS chief executive Jim Ross took over after predecessor Donald Hultgren quit in August. Stacy Hodges replaced outgoing chief financial officer Kenneth Hanks in October.

 

Their first big move: a planned debt offering of $95 million announced Dec. 6. It was pulled from the market two days later as the company cited "unfavorable market conditions."

 

"We thought they learned their lesson from the last one," Frohlich said.

 

In March, SWS Group announced the latest effort to raise capital: its deal with Dallas banking billionaire Gerald Ford and Oak Hill Capital Partners, a private equity firm whose lead investor is Fort Worth billionaire Robert Bass.

 

Under terms of the deal, Ford's Hilltop Holdings Inc. and Oak Hill would each lend SWS $50 million at 8 percent interest over five years. In addition, they would each receive warrants to buy nearly 8.7 million shares at $5.75 per share. Upon exercise, that would give them about 17 percent of the company apiece.

 

The deal requires shareholder approval and would close in the third quarter. The company's stock rose more than 5 percent Friday to $6.40 a share, its highest level since November.

 

"I think the board and the company acted in what they perceived to be the best interests of the shareholders," Ford said. "And in my opinion, this is an attractive deal for the shareholders."

 

The company defended the deal, which it said has support from many shareholders.

 

"We believe this deal will provide SWS Group with the capital necessary to address challenges at the bank and help ensure the company's long-term strength," Ross said in a statement responding to questions.

 

"We have spoken with many shareholders who are happy with this outcome and share our belief that the transaction provides shareholders with the opportunity to participate in the long-term upside potential of the company," Ross said.

 

Banking unit struggles

 

Investors and observers say SWS has a fairly robust brokerage business, in which it clears trades for individuals and other institutions along with selling and buying securities. That business accounted for more than 80 percent of the company's total revenue in its most recent quarter.

 

It's a different story for the banking unit, Southwest Securities FSB, which has $1.5 billion in assets.

 

"It's the bank that's dragging the whole thing down," said Chris Terry, an analyst at Hodges Capital, which owns SWS shares. "But if you strip away the bank and just look at the broker-dealer, the broker-dealer is profitable and well-capitalized."

 

According to the Office of Thrift Supervision, the bank "has engaged in unsafe and unsound banking practices." In particular, the OTS pointed to an excessive level of bad loans, and insufficient earnings to augment capital and cover losses.

 

In February, Southwest Securities FSB consented to an OTS regulatory order, in which the bank agreed to improve its performance and capital position.

 

SWS said the bank's problems come from "deterioration in the commercial real estate loan portfolio."

 

Southwest Securities FSB's non-performing assets amounted to about 8 percent of its total assets as of Dec. 31, according to a report by Dan Bass, managing director of FBR Capital Markets. The bank posted pre-tax losses of nearly $44 million during the second half of 2010, SWS said.

 

Still, the bank problems are probably fixable, analysts said.

 

"I don't think they're in dire straits by any stretch of the imagination," said Bass, who is no relation to Robert Bass.

 

SWS Group's underlying appeal brought an unsolicited acquisition offer from rival Sterne Agee, which offered $6.25 a share on March 15.

 

SWS' management rebuffed the bid three days later, saying it "significantly undervalues" the company. SWS also chastised Sterne Agee for attempting to talk with SWS employees about its takeover pitch.

 

"We do not appreciate the distracting, interfering and unprofessional communications from Sterne Agee employees to SWS Group employees regarding this proposal," SWS chairman Don Buchholz said in rejecting the offer.

 

Terry, from Hodges Capital, believes the company is worth north of $8 a share. He and independent analysts said other bids may be forthcoming as SWS works through what is expected to be opposition to the Ford-Oak Hill transaction.

 

Compliance operations

 

SWS Group declined to answer questions about its compliance operations after it settled two investigations into its brokerage practice in March.

 

SWS paid fines of $500,000 and $650,000 and agreed to new oversight measures to end inquiries from the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, which polices individual brokers and their firms.

 

The first was for the company's payments to individuals aimed at winning more municipal bond business. The second settled the broker's handling of short sale transactions - bets that stocks or investments will fall in value - in its clearing business. The settlements neither admitted nor denied the Finra findings.

 

One Dallas attorney who files securities-related suits said SWS' latest run-ins are probably a red flag for its compliance department.

 

"The most recent fines give me a little concern - they're pretty big," said Charles "Trey" Branham of the Dallas law firm Goldfarb Branham LLP. "If you're facing pressure from one area of the company and your compliance and risk management teams are focused there, it wouldn't surprise me at all to see that they might not be paying as close of attention to other areas of their business. It bears watching."

 

Southwest Securities Inc., under the SWS corporate umbrella, has 36 inquiries on its FINRA record dating back to the mid-1980s, records show. Some observers said that's not a surprising number of compliance events for a financial company - SWS - with $366 million in revenue.

 

In any event, the compliance problems may not be the key challenges. Fixing the bank, soothing shareholders over the Ford-Oak Hill deal and battling takeover attempts are front and center.

 

Frohlich, the executive from SWS Group's largest shareholder, has been watching chapters one and two of SWS' saga, pointing to the failed debt offering and the deal with Ford and Oak Hill.

 

He sees more uncertainty ahead, adding "I think the plan will be voted down by shareholders, and we'll go to chapter three of this saga."
 
Federal judge consolidates Super Bowl seat lawsuits Print E-mail

ARLINGTON - Two class action lawsuits filed on behalf of ticketholders who were either denied seats or assigned ones with obstructed views at Super Bowl XLV at Cowboys Stadium should be consolidated, a federal judge ruled Wednesday.

 

One suit had originally been filed in state court in Dallas County, by the Dallas-based Goldfarb Branham firm and another had been filed in federal court by the California-based Eagan Avenatti firm. Now the suits against the Dallas Cowboys and the National Football League are expected to be heard together in federal court, said attorney Trey Branham with Goldfarb Branham. A new court date has not been set.

 

Click here to read the full story.

 
Fans' lawsuits inching along Print E-mail

Fans were still leaving town when the first lawsuit was filed over the Super Bowl XLV seating troubles.

 

A month later, three cases are pending against the NFL and Dallas Cowboys, and there has already been maneuvering worthy of a coach's game plan. Legal experts and the attorneys involved were asked to explain what's happened so far and discuss strategies.

 

There have already been skirmishes about whether one lawsuit should be in state or federal court and even how much money the cases are worth. A hearing is scheduled next week to address whether one case should stay in federal court or return to the state court where it was filed. Because of construction problems, 400 fans at the Super Bowl didn't have seats and a couple of thousand others were inconvenienced.

 

The first legal challenge - filed by the Los Angeles-area firm of Eagan Avenatti in federal court - came two days after the Feb. 6 game was played at Cowboys Stadium.

 

The Dallas-based law firm of Goldfarb Branham followed with a pair of lawsuits in state court, one seeking class-action status and one that did not. The prospective class-action case was transferred to federal court at the request of the defendants.

 

Click here to read the full story.

 
<< Start < Prev 1 2 Next > End >>

Page 1 of 2