Miami Herald Reports on Lawsuit by BAC Client Lourdes Castillo Against Dori Foster-Morales

November 1, 2024 – The Miami Herald reports today on a lawsuit by Brewer client Lourdes Castillo against former Florida Bar President Dori Foster-Morales and her law firm. As reported, Castillo alleges that the firm’s legal malpractice, breach of contract and breach of fiduciary duty in connection with her divorce proceedings cost her more than $1 million.

“The complaint says it all: when our client’s divorce proceedings became complex and contentious, she retained defendants to protect her interests,” said Brewer partner William A. Brewer III. “Unfortunately, defendants were regularly unprepared for key court and arbitration events, caused Ms. Castillo to unwittingly waive substantial rights, and abandoned her during the most important time of her life.”

Brewer told the Herald, “defendants do not appear to dispute any of the claims and allegations against them – choosing instead to peddle a false narrative about fee arrangements involving a former client. Ms. Castillo is shocked by the conduct and the notion that a law firm would so blatantly disregard its professional obligations.”

Famed Texas Company AmeriTex Faces Lawsuit for Allegedly Falsifying Projections and Breaching Its Obligations to Equity Holder

Dallas, TX … October 3, 2024 – Brewer, Attorneys & Counselors announced today that its client, a former C-Suite executive of AmeriTex Holding, LLC (“AmeriTex”), the parent of AmeriTex Pipe & Products, filed claims against the company, its CEO Kevin Thompson, and director Thomas Murphy, alleging that key executives conspired to contrive financial information to avoid paying him “fair value” for his stake in the company. The filing also names the national accounting firm Marcum LLP and the law firm Kelly Hart & Hallman – both of which allegedly played a role in the claimed conspiracy.

Filed in the 456th Judicial District of Guadalupe County, Texas, on October 3, 2024, the claims lay bare the inner workings of a scheme to deny the executive, Christopher Podlasek, financial benefits to which he is entitled by creating phony projections which understate the multi-billion value of AmeriTex. According to the filing, defendants “manufactured a set of false financial projections (that wildly diverged from the projections AmeriTex recently used in the ordinary course of its business) to avoid paying Podlasek for his 1.5% equity interest.”

Founded in 2009, AmeriTex manufacturers water drainage products used in commercial construction and public works projects. The company rose to prominence as the largest player in Texas’ reinforced concrete pipe industry – which is key to the state’s exploding infrastructure needs and accounts for more than $1.2 billion in economic output.  According to the company, its three campus operations are larger than all its competitors’ storage areas combined.

The lawsuit claims that the phony financial projections were created at the same time AmeriTex presented differing, bullish forecasts to the most significant credit rating agencies in the world, including S&P and Moody’s, multinational financial institutions Bank of America and U.S. Bancorp, and institutional investors when it raised $530 million in an October 2023 high yield bond offering.  Months later, AmeriTex used the same bullish outlook to secure a new $155 million credit facility from Bank of America.

“Our client believes he was victimized by a scheme to avoid paying him ‘fair value’ for his stake in the company he helped build,” says William A. Brewer III, partner at Brewer and counsel to Mr. Podlasek. “Apparently, AmeriTex and its principals seek to keep financial benefits to which they are not entitled. Lost in the story of this Texas company is the way it attempted to devalue its worth and what it owes a former member of the company. It’s a disturbing tale for those in Texas who have witnessed AmeriTex secure state-funded projects, dominate key markets, and realize astronomical growth.”

The legal claims allege that AmeriTex recruited Podlasek to be Chief Financial Officer during a time of fiscal turmoil – to help it stabilize its back office and finance function, raise capital, and open new facilities. He did so successfully. During Podlasek’s tenure, AmeriTex grew its annual revenue from approximately $100 million to over $320 million. It also secured massive projects and embarked upon new markets – earning a glowing endorsement from Texas Governor Greg Abbott.

FOX News Reports on NRA Lawsuit Against ATF, DOJ

July 3, 2023 – Fox News reported today on a lawsuit filed by the National Rifle Association of America against the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives ("ATF") and others over a rule regulating stabilizing braces for pistols.

As reported, Brewer client the NRA is challenging the controversial “pistol brace rule” that impacts millions of America’s gun owners - subjecting them to fines and penalties. 

As the report states, "NRA argues in its complaint that the rule is unconstitutional, as the ATF reverses its long-standing position that pistol braces do not transform pistols into rifles subject to onerous registration and taxation requirements under the National Firearms Act."

"The NRA is pursuing every possible avenue in defense of its law-abiding members and their constitutional freedoms," William A. Brewer III, counsel to the NRA, told Fox News. "Our members should be free of the threat of enforcement of this presumptively unlawful rule. We are confident that we will prevail in obtaining the same relief for them that has already been granted to members of other gun rights groups."

Read more here.

Uber Faces Trial in Lawsuit Over Sexual Assault by Driver

August 11, 2021 – The Brewer law firm announced that its high-profile lawsuit against Uber is moving forward.

U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York Judge Lewis J. Liman overruled Uber’s motion to dismiss a 2020 lawsuit that alleges that Uber’s claims relating to rider-safety are materially deceptive. The case now moves forward.

Originally filed on September 28, 2020, the lawsuit was filed by a female passenger who alleges she was sexually assaulted during a 2018 late-night ride home from New York City. Plaintiff, identified as “Jane Doe,” alleges that Uber failed to take reasonable steps to vet the driver, who assaulted her when she drifted off to sleep. In a case that captured national headlines, plaintiff reported that she suffered physical and emotional trauma.

“Our client views this decision as an opportunity to shine a bright light on the company’s failure to protect its female passengers,” says William A. Brewer III, counsel for plaintiff. “There is no doubt that millions of female passengers rely upon Uber’s representations to provide a ‘safe ride.’ Our client experienced something hauntingly different:  assault at the hands of a sexual predator.”

Plaintiff asserts that Uber makes material misrepresentations to customers regarding the safety of its services, especially for female riders.  In a 42-page opinion, dated July 28, 2021, the judge writes that Uber advertises that it provides the “safest rides on the road.” The judge observes that it is reasonable for a consumer to expect that “safety” includes non-traffic-related driver behavior such as sexual assault.

“If Uber had wanted to limit its claim to the make and model, features, or maintenance of the cars, they could have said ‘connecting you to the safest cars on the road,’” writes Judge Liman. He further writes, “Plaintiff sufficiently alleges that Uber’s statements about the safety of its rides were misrepresentations that concealed safety risks. Asserting that a product in its entirety (or majority) has a quality, when in fact only a portion of that product has that quality, is materially deceptive.”

The court observes that Uber had data on the “safe/unsafe composition of its driver pool” at the time of plaintiff’s assault due to the company’s sexual assault data, yet “There is no indication from the pleadings that Uber has shared that data with customers or created a feature to flag drivers that have been reported.” As alleged in plaintiff’s lawsuit, in December 2019, Uber reported nearly 6,000 reports of sexual assaults during its rides in the United States in 2017 and 2018. Approximately 89 percent of the victims were women or female-identifying individuals.

The judge writes, “…Plaintiff has sufficiently alleged that Uber’s misrepresentations concealed a foreseeable risk covering sexual assault of a rider by a driver, which then materialized. Plaintiff has also sufficiently alleged that her reliance on Uber’s misrepresentations caused the loss she suffered – her assault.” Therefore, he concludes that Plaintiff stated a viable claim for negligent misrepresentation.

The decision concludes, “The Court will permit Plaintiff an opportunity to amend the complaint to add allegations that support Uber owed a duty to Plaintiff and its passengers as a common carrier. Plaintiff will also be permitted to amend the complaint with additional facts regarding Uber’s knowledge of Hussain’s [the driver] propensity for sexual assault.”

Plaintiff’s deadline to file an amended complaint is August 27, 2021.

Brewer News Release - Chrysler Faces Conspiracy and Breach of Contract Claims by Texas Dealership Owner

Dallas, Texas…July 19, 2021 – Brewer, Attorneys & Counselors announced that its client Richard C. Poe II, a fourth generation retail automobile dealer from Texas, filed a federal lawsuit in Michigan against FCA US LLC, formerly known as Chrysler Group LLC (“Chrysler”), accusing the automotive company of joining a conspiracy to damage Poe and unlawfully profiting from doing so.

Poe is from El Paso, Texas, and owns an interest in the oldest Chrysler dealership in Texas through Poe Management, Inc. (“PMI”). Filed on July 19, 2021, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, the lawsuit alleges “a betrayal of that historic business relationship between the Poe family and Chrysler” in which Chrysler joined a conspiracy seeking to prevent Poe from controlling the two Chrysler automotive dealerships. Poe’s great grandfather A.B. Poe opened what is now the oldest Chrysler dealership in Texas in 1928.

PMI is the general partner of the two Limited Partnership plaintiffs that own the Poe family dealerships in El Paso: Dick Poe Motors, L.P., a Texas limited partnership that owns the Dick Poe Chrysler/Jeep dealership, and Dick Poe Dodge, L.P., a Texas limited partnership that owns the Dick Poe Dodge/Ram dealership.

The lawsuit alleges that Chrysler joined the conspiracy against Poe by disregarding his legal rights, acting to limit his access to information, allowing a change in management without following proper procedures, and benefitting from the underlying conspiracy. The suit seeks millions in damages.

“As the rightful owner of these longtime Chrysler automotive dealerships, Richard Poe II believes Chrysler’s betrayal cost him millions in damages,” says William A. Brewer III, partner at Brewer, Attorneys & Counselors and counsel to Poe. “Our client believes Chrysler helped effect an improper change of control of the dealerships, so it could benefit from the sale of lucrative ‘reinsurance’ products that were previously underwritten by companies owned by Poe.”

The lawsuit alleges that Anthony E. Bock, a certified public accountant who worked for Poe’s father Dick Poe, abused his fiduciary relationship and joined a conspiracy with the intent to remove Poe from control over the dealerships in order to enrich the corporation. The lawsuit alleges that the others involved in the conspiracy were Karen G. Castro, the former office manager for Dick Poe, Paul O. Sergent, a lawyer who represented the Poes for several years; and Gery A. Reckelbus, a dealership manager.

According to the complaint, 10 days before his death in May 2015, Dick Poe caused an illegal share issuance from PMI that resulted in Richard Poe II becoming a minority shareholder. The lawsuit alleges that within days of Dick Poe’s death, Bock and Castro were named co-independent executors of Dick Poe’s estate in a will that was prepared by Sergent. Bock and Castro subsequently appointed themselves directors of PMI. They then moved to remove Richard Poe II from control over PMI and “unlawfully obtained” Chrysler’s approval of Reckelbus as the “dealer principal” for the dealerships in question.

The lawsuit asserts that Chrysler worked with the conspirators and aided them with their tortious acts by refusing to respond to correspondence from Richard Poe II or his attorneys, refusing to meet with Richard Poe II, and refusing to send notices to Richard Poe II as required by law and by contractual agreements, among other actions.

“Chrysler repeatedly failed and refused to communicate with Richard; failed, on multiple occasions, to respond to voice mails and written communications from Richard and his attorneys; and repeatedly obfuscated its internal decision process and reasons (if any) for denying Richard his rightful place as the successor of the historic, nearly 100-year-old family business,” the complaint alleges.

The lawsuit alleges seven causes of action: a breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, breach of contract, tortious interference with dealership sales and service agreements, tortious interference with prospective business relationships, fraudulent concealment and fraud by non-disclosure, conversion, and civil conspiracy. 

The lawsuit states, “Chrysler chose not to communicate with Richard and answer his questions. Instead, Chrysler cut Richard out of the loop and began engaging in other tortious conduct with the Relevant Non-Party conspirators.” The lawsuit alleges that with the change of control effected by Chrysler, the conspirators stopped purchasing vehicle protection products that were underwritten by Richard Poe II. Instead, defendants funneled those sales to Chrysler.

“Our client aims to hold Chrysler accountable for its alleged role in this scheme, and to also shine a bright light on the company’s business dealings with dealership owners across the country,” Brewer says. 

New York Law Journal: Judge's Ruling Allows NRA's First Amendment Claims to Proceed

On March 15, 2021, the New York Law Journal reported that a ruling by U.S. District Judge Thomas McAvoy of the Northern District of New York allows the NRA's First Amendment claims against New York state officials to move forward with discovery.

The lawsuit argues that New York state officials violated the NRA's First Amendment rights to express its political views.

“This important decision reaffirms that all public officials, even Gov. Cuomo and Maria Vullo, the former superintendent of the New York State Department of Financial Services, are accountable under the First Amendment,” said William Brewer, counsel to the NRA. “It will allow the NRA to pursue discovery and bring important evidence to light—to expose the communications and coordinated efforts of New York officials and others to harm the NRA and impinge its Constitutional freedoms. The message is clear: the NRA will stand up to those who unlawfully interfere with its Second Amendment advocacy.”

The article reports that Judge McAvoy denied qualified immunity to former New York Department of Financial Services (DFS) superintendent Maria Vullo, noting that "a question of material fact exists" as to whether Vullo "explicitly threatened" an insurer with DFS enforcement unless it broke ties with the NRA.

Read more.

Brewer Storefront News Release: Judge Allows Lawsuit Alleging Frisco ISD Electoral System Violates Voting Rights Act of 1965 to Proceed

Dallas, Texas…March 24, 2020 – In a critically important ruling, U.S. District Judge Amos L. Mazzant of the Eastern District of Texas denied a motion by the Frisco Independent School District (FISD) for summary judgment on March 23 – clearing the way for a Voting Rights Act lawsuit to proceed to trial.

The action filed by Brewer Storefront on behalf of plaintiff Suresh Kumar is one of the highest profile cases of its kind, as electoral bodies across North Texas come under greater scrutiny for allegedly utilizing unconstitutional voting schemes.

Brewer Storefront filed suit in federal court on April 16, 2019, on behalf of plaintiff Kumar against FISD and its trustees, alleging that the school district’s at-large election system violates the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

The lawsuit claims that the school district’s at-large voting system denies Kumar an opportunity equal to that of white voters to elect representatives of his choice. The Storefront is the community service legal affiliate of Brewer, Attorneys & Counselors.

“This decision underscores what we have believed all along – the voting scheme utilized by Frisco ISD violates the Voting Rights Act and denies minority voters the opportunity to elect a candidate of their choosing,” says William A. Brewer III, partner at Brewer Storefront and lead counsel for plaintiff Suresh Kumar. “We are eager to get to trial and bring the facts of this case into full view.”

Under the current electoral system, FISD’s seven school board members are elected at large. Candidates run for specific places but do not represent a specific geographic area. The lawsuit claims the at-large; system unlawfully dilutes minority votes and allows the white voting bloc to determine the winner of every election.

In his ruling, U.S. District Judge Mazzant wrote that, “After a careful review of the record and the arguments presented – including Defendants’ Supplement to Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment – the Court is not convinced that Defendants have met their burden demonstrating that there is no material issue of fact as to Plaintiff's claims entitling them to judgment as a matter of law. Accordingly, the Court finds that Defendants' Motion for Summary [Judgment] should be denied."

A trial date is not yet set in this case, but a date may be set at a pretrial conference with the judge on March 31. On March 20, 2020, Brewer Storefront filed a second amended complaint in the lawsuit.

Six Asian candidates and two Hispanic candidates ran unsuccessfully for the FISD board over the four years prior to the filing of the lawsuit. All eight of the candidates of color lost to a white opponent in those FISD board elections. The only minority (Asian) candidate to prevail in an election was elected in May 2019 following the filing of the voting rights lawsuit. Six of seven FISD trustees are White.

FISD is an increasingly diverse school district. As of January 2020, the district reported enrolling 63,015 students, almost 59% of whom are students of color. FISD’s student enrollment is approximately 41.2% White, 29.3% Asian, 13.5% Hispanic, 11.1% African American and 4.2% multiracial (two or more races).

The lawsuit alleges that, “Minority-preferred candidates face a White voting bloc that represents nearly 67% of FISD’s Citizen Voting Age Population. The at-large system allows racially polarized voting within FISD to dilute minority votes and allow a plurality of White votes to block minority candidates from virtually every trustee seat in the District.”

The lawsuit alleges that unless the court directs FISD to design a single-member district or cumulative voting system, the current discriminatory system will persist.

The lawsuit states that, “Unfortunately, the Board has not accepted that as part of a booming suburban community, it must adapt to the dynamic reality of today and adopt an election system that encourages greater participation of all citizens and secures equality at the ballot box.”

Kumar, the plaintiff, is a Certified Public Accountant who is active in local civic affairs. A resident within Frisco ISD, Kumar has two daughters who have attended FISD schools. Kumar is an Asian American who moved from India to the United States in 1994. 

The Storefront has successfully challenged violations of the Voting Rights Act on behalf of other communities of interest in previous actions.

The Storefront successfully resolved Voting Rights Act cases with the Richardson Independent School District in January 2019, the Carrollton-Farmers Branch Independent School District in 2015, and the Grand Prairie Independent School District in 2014. All districts now utilize remodeled voting systems. The Storefront also secured trial victories in Voting Rights Act cases against the Irving Independent School District in 2014, the City of Farmers Branch in 2012, and the City of Irving in 2009. Those lawsuits paved the way for the formation of new voting systems and the election of minority candidates