In re Longview Energy Company

Case Updates

The Texas Supreme Court did not address the issue of appeal bond caps. Instead, it concluded that the money judgement award at issue was not for “compensatory damages.” The Court also agreed with the court of appeals that the discovery order was not an abuse of discretion.

In its brief, the U.S. Chamber joined with other business groups to urge the Texas Supreme Court to clarify that a Texas statute’s $25 million cap on appeal bonds applies on a per judgment, rather than per defendant, basis. A trial court and intermediate appellate court both ruled that the appeal bond cap applied on a per judgment basis and limited the bond for the four defendants to $25 million total. The plaintiff appealed, seeking a $100 million bond on the four defendants.

The brief explained that Texas and the overwhelming majority of states passed appeal bond caps to help facilitate meaningful access to appellate review, particularly in light of the surge in blockbuster “bet-the-business” judgments. The brief warned the court that applying the cap on a per defendant basis would threaten the ability of defendants to appeal—particularly in complex litigation involving outsized awards—which would increase the pressure for defendants to settle even meritless claims.

The Chamber filed this brief jointly with the American Tort Reform Association and the National Federation of Independent Business.

Elmore James Shepherd III of Shook, Hardy & Bacon L.L.P. served as co-counsel for the amici with the U.S. Chamber Litigation Center in this case.