Shareholder Representation in Multiple Courts

Posted by

Shareholder Representation in Multiple Courts

Eugenio Falcon et al. v. Matinee Media Corp. et al., Cause No. DC-11-322, In the District Court of Starr County, Texas, 229th Judicial District (2012):

This shareholder dispute has called upon the Storm Firm’s deep trial and appellate experience, requiring skilled advocacy in five different trial and appellate venues, including district courts in Starr County and Travis County, the Third Court of Appeals in Austin, the Fourth Court of Appeals in San Antonio, and the Texas Supreme Court.

Our firm was retained as lead counsel for the largest block of Matinee Media shareholders, to defend and enforce an order entered in Starr County requiring the radio station license holding company, its sole officer and sole director to hold a shareholder meeting and allow the election of a new corporate management for Matinee Media. Intent on resisting the trial court’s order, Matinee Media and the other defendants sought mandamus relief from the Fourth Court of Appeals and the Texas Supreme Court. Matinee has also filed an interlocutory appeal to the Fourth Court of Appeals and, after losing its venue challenge in Starr County, filed a collateral venue challenge in Travis County. When another shareholder subsequently intervened in the Travis County case and was appointed receiver over Matinee, the Storm Firm was again tapped to challenge the receiver’s appointment both in the trial court and on appeal to the Third Court of Appeals.

Our firm successfully defeated Matinee’s mandamus petition and direct appeal to the Fourth Court of Appeals, defeated the Defendants’ mandamus petition to the Texas Supreme Court and, when the receiver decided to bow out of the Travis County case, our firm persuaded the Travis County district court to deny the Receiver any award of attorneys’ fees from the funds of the company.  A copy of our firm’s brief to the Texas Supreme Court can be obtained at the following hyperlink:

Ultimately, after obtaining an order finding Matinee’s management to be in contempt of court for refusing to hold the court-ordered shareholder meeting, our firm successfully compelled Matinee to conduct a fair and impartial shareholder election that put in place new management for the company.