Robin Gibbs was a rookie lawyer in the fall of 1971 and only weeks into his job at Vinson & Elkins, where he billed clients $35 an hour, when he went to trial in his first case representing an insurance company in a $278 car accident case — a litigation matter with “the stakes so modest they were impossible to forget,” he said.

“This case and a docket of these kinds of cases were handed to me on my first day,” Gibbs told The Texas Lawbook. “This was an era when the Texas district and county courts were loaded with these kinds of disputes for only thousands or even just hundreds of dollars, and defense lawyers would force these kinds of cases to trial.”

The legal industry was also undergoing revolutionary technological advancement in court document processes — IBM’s unveiling of the Selectric typewriter, which used a spinning golf ball-sized typing element. Gibbs described the device as a “game-changer.”

“You tell a young person today that you have a ‘Selectromatic’ or something, and they will think it is some kind of juicer,” he said.

The issue at trial, which lasted almost three days, was which driver was at fault in the intersection accident. The two sides called a total of five witnesses, including the plaintiff, the defendant, two police officers and a mechanic.

The jury deliberated about 90 minutes before reaching a verdict.

“When the jury reached a verdict, the jurors would push a button and a buzzer would go off in the courtroom, and it always caused a stir at the courthouse,” Gibbs said.

The six-person jury ruled in Gibbs’ favor.

Back at V&E a few hours later, fellow lawyers gave Gibbs “no small amount of grief” for winning against opposing counsel, who happened to be the chief law librarian of Harris County who represented the plaintiff because he was a friend.

“I reminded my colleagues that my opposing counsel had probably opened more law books than the rest of them combined — a credential not to be underestimated,” he said.

Fifty-five years later, Gibbs has gone from defending a $278 fender-bender case to leading Gibbs & Bruns, a nationally revered law firm that is currently representing the second largest corporation in the world, Google, in an antitrust and deceptive trade practices dispute where billions of dollars are at stake.

“All I have ever wanted to do is be a trial lawyer,” Gibbs said. “It has been an incredible honor to be a lawyer, to work with so many great lawyers and to represent so many extraordinary clients.”

In an exclusive interview with the Lawbook, Gibbs said he is officially retiring from the practice of law Dec. 31.

“If not now, when?” he said. “I will still be around. I will still have an office, and I will still be a nuisance to everyone, but the law firm is in great hands. I turn 80 on Oct. 12 — the same day as my wife, and thus it is impossible for me to miss my wife’s birthday.”

Harry Reasoner, a retired V&E partner who mentored Gibbs, said there are “too few like Robin” in the legal profession.

“Robin is not just a great lawyer, he is a true friend to lawyers and those who depend on the legal system for justice,” Reasoner said.

David Beck, founding partner at Houston-based Beck Redden, agreed.

“Robin and I starting practicing law during the Golden Age of trial lawyers when we took cases to trial almost every week,” Beck said. “Robin tried all kinds of cases, which allowed him to hone his craft and skills. Robin knew trial preparation and how to pick a jury were the keys to being a great trial lawyer.”

Pioneering the Litigation Boutique

By any account, Gibbs is a giant in the legal profession. He has won jury and bench trials in six different decades.

His hourly rate has gone up a bit: He now bills $1,700 per hour. He pioneered the concept of litigation boutiques in the mid-1970s, which was several years before Beck, Steve Susman, Paul Yetter and others followed. Gibbs successfully defended — or sued and defeated — some of the largest and most powerful corporations and executives in the world.

“For the first 20 or 25 years, I was offended that we were referred to as a litigation boutique,” Gibbs said. “I told people that there were no lavender and lace around here. But my rejection of the term did not have much effect on its usage.”

Gibbs has taken more than 200 commercial lawsuits to trial — about one-third of them as the plaintiff. He secured some huge court victories, including:

• A $196 million judgment for a plaintiff client against Dallas billionaire Trevor Rees-Jones and energy giant Devon Energy;

• A $309.9 million verdict for plaintiff Avia Development Group against American General Realty Investment Corporation;

• An $84 million win for plaintiff Apex in a securities fraud case against N-Group Securities; and

• A $23.4 million judgment against the Port of Houston for his client Zachry Construction Corp.

“Robin has a selflessness about him that is unique among outstanding trial lawyers,” said Barrett Reasoner, son of Harry Reasoner and a partner at Gibbs & Bruns. “His priority has always been building the firm into a great institution, as opposed to adding to his personal glory. For the profession, Robin sets an example of practicing law in an aggressive, effective fashion, while maintaining honor and deep respect for the practice.”

Gibbs and Reasoner say the law firm, which now has 38 attorneys handling cases pending in courts across the country, is in an excellent position going forward because of its long-term succession plan. They point to the 2020 decision to appoint Ashley Kleber and Michael Absmeier as co-managing partners.

“The firm is in better shape than it has ever been, and we have a great future with Ashley and Michael leading,” Gibbs said.

Praise from the Texas Trial Bar

Gibbs is not just respected as a trial lawyer; he is beloved by his colleagues in the profession.

“Humility makes Robin Gibbs a great trial lawyer. He doesn’t flaunt his intelligence,” said Houston lawyer Murray Fogler of Fogler, O’Neil & Gray. “Don’t get me wrong — he doesn’t lack for confidence. But Robin has a self-deprecating manner that makes him very relatable and oh-so-easy to like. He understands that all humans have their frailties, and he is not immune from them.”

“That characteristic prompts Robin to give credit to others for any success, and it has allowed him to build one of the premier litigation firms in the country,” Fogler said. “You want to know his contribution to the legal profession — look at the partners and associates in his firm, and the diaspora of others who used to work for him. Great lawyers want to work for Robin because they know they’ll get great work and they’ll get credit for doing it. A great leader builds a legacy that will endure long after he is gone, and Gibbs & Bruns is that legacy.”

Gibbs and Houston trial lawyer Richard Mithoff jointly represented a prominent Texas businessman who started a technology company when he was sued by another tech company for hundreds of millions of dollars, claiming trade secrets theft for allegedly stealing critical code.

Mithoff said they hired experts to examine the two codes to show they were not identical.

The experts, however, returned with shocking information: Not only was it the same identical code, but both codes had the same errors or flaws.

“I told Robin this is very bad,” Mithoff said. “I can’t tell you much about the case because it is confidential, but Robin and I met with the experts, and Robin developed a strong legal argument that led us to cross-sue the defendants. And it worked.”

Instead of having to pay a nine-digit damage claim, the client for Gibbs and Mithoff ended up winning an eight-digit award.

“Robin is a great trial lawyer who has an extraordinary ability to explain complex cases in a way that juries and the judges better understand his clients’ positions,” Mithoff said. “He wins most of his cases, but even in those cases where no trial lawyer could win, Robin gives juries the reasons and the room to come back with much lower verdicts than they otherwise would have.”

‘Great Debates’ at Dinner Table

Gibbs’ mother, an amateur actress, was born and raised in Taylor, Texas, where her family had been in the oil business. His father and his family were from London.

“Dad grew up as a child when there were still horse-drawn fire wagons running around, putting fires out in London,” Gibbs said. “He came to the States because he did not want to stay in his dad’s business over there. He came to the U.S. because he saw socialized medicine coming. And he was not a political person in Britain, but he felt that it was not going to deliver the level of healthcare that that he thought would be best.”

Gibbs’ father moved to Philadelphia in 1936, where he earned an osteopathic medical degree. There he met and married Gibbs’ mother, who was attending finishing school.

When Germany invaded Poland in September 1939, Gibbs’ parents moved to London, where his father enrolled in St Mary’s Hospital Medical School and earned a second medical degree. One of his instructors was Dr. Alexander Fleming, who discovered penicillin.

“While in medical school and on graduation, dad served in the British Army as a captain in the Medical Corps during the war in Europe,” Gibbs said. “Dad and my mother lived in London throughout The Blitz during the Fall of 1940 through the Spring of 1941 and to the end of the war.”

After the war ended, Gibbs’ father was assigned to serve as a medical officer in British Guiana, where Gibbs was born in 1946. Three years later, the Gibbs family returned to the U.S. They lived in upstate New York in the Catskills, where his father worked as a general practitioner from 1949 to 1957. On Thanksgiving Day 1957, the family moved to Fort Worth.  

His interest in the law started, Gibbs said, during “great debates” he had with his mother at the dinner table.

“My parents had a rule that we had to be seated for dinner — the four of us, my brother and my parents — every single night,” he said. “In retrospect, that was my mother’s gameplan. I think that was part of my formative training. I didn’t realize it at the time, but I got a good dosage of it. But mom was a very fine actress and a real piece of work.”

As a boy, Gibbs would go with his dad to his New York medical office.

“He delivered babies up and down the valley where we lived near Kingston, New York,” he said. “He treated every conceivable disease. He was probably the best diagnostician that I’ve ever encountered among doctors.”

“He was the kindest, gentlest man I ever met. He was a real healer,” he said.

Gibbs’ decision to pursue law can be traced to an uncle on his mother’s side of the family named Pat Maloney, a trial lawyer in San Antonio.

“Pat Maloney was good buddies with Joe Jamail, and they were of the same ilk and background in the Marines in the Pacific Theater,” Gibbs said. “Pat would regale me with all kinds of stories about his trials when I was about 16. By 17, I had decided that I was going to be a trial lawyer. And that was all I ever gave any thought to after that. So with medicine, I just knew I couldn’t be as good, kind and fair-minded as my dad. And [I knew] that I was pretty opinionated, so I was better suited for this calling than that calling.”

Gibbs earned his bachelor’s degree from Tulane University in 1968 and his law degree from the University of Texas in 1971.

A Visionary in Commercial Trial Practice

V&E hired Gibbs as a member of its insurance defense litigation practice, where he was highly successful.

Many at the Houston firm believed that Gibbs was a rising star who would one day follow Reasoner in leading the firm. But Gibbs felt otherwise.

“I knew early on that I really wasn’t an institutional lawyer,” he said. “I also perceived that there probably was a vacuum in trial practice I wanted to [fill]. Being a trial lawyer — that’s all I ever wanted to do. But I decided that I wanted to try cases in commercial litigation.”

The problem in the 1970s, according to Gibbs, was “there wasn’t the appetite among companies to really litigate, except when compelled to do so.”

“Big companies didn’t want to be a plaintiff, as they were too busy defending against lawsuits, and the big law firms had the big defense litigation pretty boxed up,” he said. “This was an era dominated by personal injury litigation. All the judges were former personal injury lawyers, and they had no experience in trying commercial disputes.”

“But I sensed there was a shift out there. The transactions started getting bigger and attitudes changed,” he said. “It occurred to me there was the possibility that you could build a firm that was a small commercial or business trial law firm that applied the same kind of experience that we’d had in in trying jury cases in personal injury, and that we could hire the same quality of people.”

“Because corporations were just learning to be plaintiffs, we wanted to try cases on both sides of the ‘v’ — representing plaintiffs and defendants,” he said.

In 1974, Gibbs left V&E to join three other prominent Texas attorneys — Michael W. Wood, Wynn Campbell, and John Moody — to start their own firm.

Gibbs scored a huge coup in 1978 when he hired Debbie Ratliff, the highly sought-after No. 1 graduate of the University of Texas Law School and law clerk for Judge Homer Thornberry on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.

“There were not many women practicing high-stakes commercial litigation,” Gibbs said. “It was clear that Debbie was going to be a star, and she was. Hiring Debbie sent a message to the rest of the legal community.”

In October 1983, Gibbs and Ratliff started their own firm with a total of eight attorneys.  

“We wanted to focus only on complex, high-profile commercial trials,” Gibbs said. “Unlike the corporate law firms, we avoided having as many client conflicts. I began to build from [the ground up] a litigation group that was designed to do just what we talked about.”

“We also benefited by Harry Reasoner sending us cases when V&E had conflicts,” he said.

Gibbs said Reasoner once connected him with executives at Halliburton and Brown & Root, who needed a lawyer to handle litigation over billions of dollars in cost overruns at a South Texas nuclear facility.

Gibbs asked his mentor how much he should seek as a retainer.

“I told Harry I thought about asking for $10,000, and Harry said $100,000,” he said. “I liked Harry’s retainer number better.”

Basil Narun, a real estate developer, hired Gibbs and Ratliff in 1985 to lead a lender liability case in which Narun sued Allied Mercantile Bank for reneging on a development loan for a commercial project in Houston. The case went to trial in 1987.

Representing the plaintiff, Gibbs and Ratliff called the bankers’ key witnesses to testify.

“To our surprise, the defense lawyers decided to postpone all the direct questions of their own witnesses to their defense case,” he said. “We were able to put on our entire case and all the key witnesses and tell our story uninterrupted by counter questions to the defendant’s witnesses by the defense lawyers.”

“Just prior to the close of the entire case and out of the presence of the jury, the court commented in the presence of all counsel that she ‘sensed something important is about to happen in this court.’ Sure enough, the jury returned an $8 million damages verdict — one of the largest lender liability awards in Texas,” Gibbs said. “We thought we had died and gone to heaven.”

Gibbs and Ratliff scored another coup in 1992 when they landed Barrett Reasoner, who had spent two years as a Houston state prosecutor after graduating from UT Law School.

“I interviewed with the big Texas law firms and thought I was done with those meetings, and I was sitting in class wearing shorts and a T-shirt when someone told me Robin was on campus interviewing and they said I should talk,” Reasoner said.

“Barrett apologized for his dress, but I thought it was great he was wearing shorts,” Gibbs said. “Every one of the big law firms wanted to hire Barrett. It was more than just him being Harry’s son, though that did not hurt. Barrett had great trial experience in the DA’s office.”

Reasoner said Gibbs style of leadership and mentoring has allowed the firm to be so successful.

“I liked the firm’s entrepreneurial style,” Reasoner said. “Robin has always had the courage to allow younger lawyers to take on important arguments and witness examinations, even when he must surely have had reservations about it. That approach has allowed our associates and younger partners to spread their wings and become everything they’re capable of. That approach has allowed our firm to have depth and quality experience at every level.”

“Working with Robin has been everything and more than what I expected,” he said.

Reasoner joined Gibbs & Ratliff in the midst of the law firm’s biggest litigation matters — its representation of Texas-based Avia Development Group sued American General Realty Investment Corporation claiming breach of contract and fiduciary duties in the development of air cargo facilities at New York City area’s three major airports.

The trial in Harris County lasted six weeks, and the jury returned a verdict for $309.9 million.

“Almost no one gave us a chance to win this case,” Gibbs said. “I remember driving back to the office after the trial. I was exhausted. But then I heard about our jury trial win on the radio, and I thought, ‘This is big. It is even on the news.’”

Reasoner said the Avia verdict followed on the heels of Jamail’s historic Houston trial win for Pennzoil against Texaco in 1985.

“Robin worked that case up and tried it with a relentlessness and precision that was a wonder to behold,” Reasoner said. “He called the other side’s key witness as an adverse first witness in the case. What followed was a methodical, A-to-Z cross examination that made the ultimate verdict weeks later seem inevitable.”

Ratliff retired in 1993 after she helped lead the blockbuster Avia case with Gibbs. The firm then added partner Phillip Bruns to the door, becoming Gibbs & Bruns. Bruns retired in 2009.

The huge victories have continued, and there are more massive cases on the firm’s docket.

“Do I think Robin is really going to retire and stay retired?” Mithoff said. “I think we might hear from him again in the right case. But his wife may have something to say about that.”

Texas Lawbook Litigation Editor Michelle Casady contributed to this report. You can reach Michelle at michelle.casady@texaslawbook.net or (713) 614-7929.

---

Robin Gibbs’ Landmark Trial Victories Over the Past Six Decades

In a career spanning more than 50 years, Gibbs & Bruns co-founder Robin Gibbs has established a reputation as one of the nation’s most formidable trial litigators, securing major victories across commercial litigation, securities fraud, lender liability and energy disputes.

Below we highlight 11 of Gibbs’ defining cases, legal strategies and historic verdicts that have shaped his legacy in the courtroom:

1979

Successful Defense of $25 Million Trade Secrets Claim

• Case: Creole Production Co. v. James Harper, No. 79-43,836
• Venue: 127th District Court, Harris County
• Result: A take-nothing defense verdict

Background: Creole Production filed a trade secrets case for $25 million against James Harper, a former employee. Pretrial, plaintiff’s counsel Tom Alexander obtained an ex parte writ of sequestration, taking more than 10,500 documents from Harper’s home to use as trial exhibits. Gibbs represented Harper and collaborated with Vinson & Elkins partner Harry Reasoner, who was counsel for Harper’s new employer — the party that allegedly received the Creole’s trade secrets. The case was tried for a month in the Plaintiff’s case alone and before an all-woman jury (the last one Gibbs recalls seating in a major case). 

The trial: The plaintiff’s team opted not to call Harper to the stand during the monthlong presentation of its case-in-chief. The move was designed to make Harper sweat, then force the defense to call him to the stand, where Alexander planned to “fillet” him on cross-examination. The pressure caused Harper severe stress throughout the trial.

Gibbs and Reasoner decided to take a gamble. Feeling confident that their cross-examinations of the plaintiff’s witnesses had made an impact on the jury — and not wanting to risk their client having a breakdown on the stand — they announced that they would rest their case without calling a single witness, shocking the plaintiff’s counsel, the court and jury.

Outcome: The gamble paid off. The all-female jury — the last such jury Gibbs would see seated in a major case — returned a complete take-nothing verdict for the defense.

1987

$8 Million Plaintiff’s Verdict in Lender Liability Lawsuit

• Case:Basil Narun v. Allied Mercantile Bank, et al, No. 85-43,594
• Venue: 127th District Court, Harris County
• Result: A jury verdict for $8 million

Background: Gibbs represented real estate developer Basil Narun in a lender liability case against Allied Mercantile Bank for reneging on a loan for a commercial development project in Houston.

The trial: At the start of the trial, Gibbs got aggressive and called the defendant bankers’ key witnesses to the stand as adverse witnesses. The defense team miscalculated by choosing to postpone all direct questions for their witnesses until the defense case. This meant Gibbs could present the plaintiff’s full narrative of the case uninterrupted. Before the case closed — and out of the presence of the jury — the judge remarked in the presence of all counsel that she “sensed something important is about to happen in this court.”

Outcome: The jury returned an $8 million damages verdict, which at the time was one of the largest lender liability awards in Texas.

1989

$60 Million Jury Verdict for Plaintiff in Jury Trial

• Case: Boyce Engineering International, Inc. v. McNair Energy Services Corporation, et al., No. 85-43560
• Venue: 333rd District Court, Harris County
• Result: A jury verdict for $60 million

Background: Gibbs was lead counsel for plaintiff Boyce Engineering in this breach of contract, joint venture and breach of fiduciary duty case. The client, a leading gas turbine design engineer, teamed with McNair Energy Services to bid on and win power generation contracts in Bayonne, New Jersey. Under a one-page letter agreement, Boyce was entitled to a 10 percent interest in the contracts awarded to the joint venture. McNair reneged and refused to share the proceeds.

The trial: Counsel called the defendant adverse at the start of the case and cross-examined him for two days, using the witness’ testimony and documents to present most of the plaintiff’s case. The trial lasted a month.

Outcome: On Christmas Eve, the jury awarded the plaintiff $60 million, and judgment was entered on the verdict. The case settled shortly after Boyce filed an appeal. Jurors later said that although the trial lasted a month, they had decided liability by the time the key defense witness left the stand on the second day.

1990

$44 Million Defense Verdict Lender Liability Case

• Case: Petromax Inc., et al. v. First City National Bank of Houston, et al., [docket number not available]
• Venue: 11th District Court, Harris County
• Result: Complete defense verdict

Background: The plaintiffs claimed that First City National Bank breached a development loan agreement and caused $44 million in damages.

The trial: To pressure a settlement, the plaintiff subpoenaed the bank’s board chairman to travel from Chicago and testify, betting jurors would see him as a distant, hard-hearted executive. Gibbs’ team chose not to fight the subpoena, calculating that a well-prepared chairman could instead come across as likable and persuasive. He testified after thorough preparation, and jurors responded well, appreciating that he had traveled to explain the bank’s side in person.

Outcome: The jury found no liability and awarded no damages, proving that juries do not always hold institutional defendants to the bias often expected of them.

1993

$309.9 Million Jury Verdict for Plaintiff

• Case: Avia Development Group Inc., et al. v. American General Realty Investment Corp., et al., No. 91-47852
• Venue: 61st District Court, Harris County
• Result: Jury verdict for $309.9 million, affirmed on appeal

Background: Gibbs was lead plaintiff’s counsel on claims that American General breached its joint venture, contractual and fiduciary duties owed to Avia in developing major air cargo facilities at Newark, JFK and LaGuardia airports.

The trial: At a time when cases typically took three years or more to reach trial, the court set this one for trial in 18 months despite repeated defense delay tactics. On the eve of jury selection, the defense put an American General affiliate into bankruptcy to stall the case. Counsel moved to lift the automatic stay, and the motion was granted. The defense appealed to the Fifth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, but the circuit court let the trial proceed on schedule over the weekend. One American General vice president had been involved in the deal from start to finish. While being deposed over several days, he made numerous admissions on liability and damages. Counsel called him adverse as the first witness and built most of the plaintiff’s case around his testimony over six days, repeatedly impeaching him with his deposition when he tried to change his answers at trial.

Outcome: The jury awarded $309.9 million, one of the largest plaintiff verdicts in the country that year and a rare feat during the height of Texas tort reform, when few large jury verdicts survived appeal. Chief Justice Alice Oliver Parrott of the 1st Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment. Jurors said afterward they had largely decided the case once the key witness left the stand. “The Avia case was one of our finest trial achievements during my career,” Gibbs said. “As I was driving back to the office shortly after the verdict, I turned on the radio and the verdict was already hitting the local and national news outlets.”

1994

$84 Million Securities Fraud Verdict for Plaintiff

• Case: Apex Municipal Fund Inc., et al. v. N-Group Securities Inc., et al., No. 92-546, 841 F. Supp. 142 (S.D. Texas 1993)
• Venue: U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas
• Result: Jury verdict for $84 million

Background: Gibbs and Kathy Patrick (right) represented securities bond fund companies that had issued $73 million in mortgage revenue bonds to develop six private prisons in Texas. The clients alleged the defendants misrepresented material facts about the project, and that the risks they concealed later materialized and destroyed the value of the bonds.

The trial: Witnesses included a former Texas governor and attorney general who had backed the deal and a defendant promoter who appeared on video repeatedly invoking the Fifth Amendment. A break came while cross-examining a principal of the project’s contracting company, who evaded questions about other defendants’ responsibility. Pressed further, he admitted receiving a $50,000 loan from another defendant, backed by a promissory note he had not disclosed in discovery. U.S. District Judge Sim Lake ordered the note produced and reviewed it overnight, later saying he’d never seen anything like it in 25 years as a lawyer: Attached was a set of written questions and answers supporting the defense — the same answers the witness had given under oath.

Outcome: Gibbs’ team recalled the witness and presented the note to the jury, which returned an $84 million verdict — one of the few securities fraud cases tried to a jury in that era, and one of the largest.

1995

Take-Nothing Defense Judgment in $100 Million Gas Royalty Case

• Case: Peggy Masterson Stinnett, et al. v. Colorado Interstate Gas Co. v. Mesa Operating Limited Partnership, No. CA-2-92-78
• Venue: U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Amarillo Division
• Result: Take-nothing judgment for the defense, affirmed by the Fifth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals

Background: Gibbs was lead counsel for the defendant gas pipeline company in a royalty suit alleging underpayment, fraud, breach of fiduciary duty and negligent misrepresentation. Pretrial damages claims topped $400 million; the trial demand exceeded $61 million.

The trial: Gibbs says this case was one of his most challenging to defend. On the eve of trial, the judge granted nearly all of the plaintiffs’ summary judgment motions, leaving the defense with one theory: quasi-estoppel, arguing the plaintiffs had accepted royalty payments with enough knowledge to bar a later claim for more. Early in trial, the court excluded a dozen defense exhibits during cross-examination, suspecting an attempt to relitigate its pretrial rulings. Once it was clear the exhibits went only to the plaintiffs’ conduct in accepting payments, not to reinterpreting the contract, the court admitted them. Later, the plaintiffs’ lead witness testified that he and other wealthy royalty holders had been paid mere “scraps” — which turned out to mean about $200,000 a year each, a line the Gibbs and his team exploited as its theme for the rest of trial.

Outcome: The jury found the plaintiffs’ damages were less than $150,000 and that their claims were barred. The trial court entered a take-nothing judgment and a declaratory judgment barring future claims, which the Fifth Circuit affirmed.

Zero-Damages Defense Verdict Plus $11.5 Million Counterclaim in Six-Week Jury Trial

• Case: Quantum Chemical Corp. v. The M.W. Kellogg Co., No. 92-045328
• Venue: 125th District Court, Harris County
• Result: Defense verdict of no fraud and zero damages, plus an $11.5 million counterclaim verdict for Kellogg

Background: Gibbs and Phil Bruns represented M.W. Kellogg in a fraud and contract dispute in which Quantum sought $260 million in actual damages and $400 million in exemplary damages. Kellogg counterclaimed for theft of trade secrets. At issue were novel heaters Kellogg designed and installed at Quantum’s processing plant, which failed and threatened the facility’s value. Quantum’s own internal emails, produced in discovery, called the sale and installation a “fraud” on the customer.

The trial: After the heaters failed and Kellogg was fired, Quantum hired BASF to design replacements. In BASF’s files, the defense found design plans that were Kellogg’s originals with a new author block pasted over the old one — evidence that supported Kellogg’s counterclaim for theft of trade secrets and proprietary information.

Outcome: After six weeks, the jury rejected Quantum’s claims entirely and awarded Kellogg $11.5 million on its counterclaim. The case later settled on the sole basis of Quantum paying that judgment.

2010

Gibbs & Bruns Secures $23.4 Million Plaintiff Verdict Against Port of Houston

• Case: Zachry Construction Corp. v. Port of Houston Authority of Harris County, Texas, No. 2006-72970
• Venue: 151st District Court, Harris County
• Result: Final judgment of $23.4 million

Background: Zachry sued the Port of Houston Authority for breach of contract after the port rejected — at the last minute — a contractually approved method for building a 2,000-foot wharf at its Bayport terminal. Zachry began construction on a 1,660-foot wharf in June 2004, targeting partial completion by February 2006 for a specialized crane delivery from China. Once work was underway, the port realized it needed to extend the wharf by 332 feet. Zachry had planned to build in dry conditions using a frozen soil wall as a temporary coffer dam and proposed a frozen cutoff wall to divide the expanded project so the partial completion deadline could still be met. The port initially approved the plan, then reversed course, forcing Zachry to excavate in wet conditions using conventional methods — driving up costs and delays. Prior to trial, the Gibbs & Bruns team successfully defeated several summary judgment motions filed by the Port seeking.

The trial: Judge Mike Engelhart presided over the three-month trial. The port denied any breach, blamed Zachry’s own inefficiencies for the methodology change and invoked a “no damages for delay” clause to try to block recovery. The jury sided with Zachry, finding the port’s fraudulent conduct in barring Zachry’s chosen construction method caused the delays. The defense had also defeated several pretrial summary judgment motions seeking to dismiss the case.

Outcome: After three days of deliberation, the jury awarded Zachry more than $18 million. The court’s final judgment reached $23.4 million, adding sums the court found the port had improperly withheld plus prejudgment interest. The case drew national attention for holding that governmental immunity did not shield the port from a commercial breach of contract suit, and, on appeal, for the Texas Supreme Court’s ruling — written by Chief Justice Nathan Hecht — that a “no damages for delay” clause cannot protect a party from the consequences of its own fraud. After all appeals were exhausted, the port paid the fully accrued judgment of more than $38 million. The Gibbs & Bruns trial team included Gibbs, Sydney Ballesteros, Jennifer Horan Greer and Mike Absmeier.

At the annual State Bar of Texas Contractors’ Conference in San Antonio, Gibbs was asked to speak about the Zachry case and the appellate decisions. Conference participants generally saw the rejection of governmental immunity in the context of the port’s commercial agreements as fair and sensible, but they were even more struck by the Supreme Court’s rejection of “no damages for delay” clauses where the owner’s delay was caused by its own fraud. Attendees also praised the animated graphics — state-of-the-art for their time — used at trial to depict the sequence of events around Zachry’s frozen cutoff wall and to show precisely when the port’s actions adversely affected Zachry’s construction.

2011

$196 Million Plaintiff’s Judgment in Close-Corporation Shareholder Fraud Lawsuit

• Case: D. Bobbitt Noel Jr. v. Devon Energy Holdings LLC, et al., No. 2008-39598
• Venue: 127th District Court, Harris County
• Result: A trial judgment for $196 million (following a $300 million+ jury verdict)

Background: Gibbs and some of his fellow partners represented investor Bobbitt Noel Jr. in litigation against Dallas billionaire Trevor Rees-Jones and Devon Energy Production Company. Rees-Jones, the managing co-owner of a startup energy firm that grew highly valuable through horizontal drilling, bought Noel’s minority stake for $8 million based on limited financial disclosures. Shortly after, Rees-Jones sold the entire company to Devon Energy for over $2 billion. Noel sued, alleging Rees-Jones had fraudulently concealed critical valuation and drilling expansion plans.

The trial: The plaintiff’s team pushed the case to trial despite a parallel lawsuit brought by another minority investor on identical facts that another judge had already dismissed by summary judgment. Undeterred, Gibbs argued his client’s case in a five-week trial, focusing heavily on the majority owner’s breach of fiduciary duties.

Outcome: The Houston jury returned a verdict for Noel exceeding $300 million, on which the trial court entered a $196 million judgment. Gibbs then worked with the appellate counsel from the parallel case, successfully using the trial record to help overturn the adverse summary judgment in the court of appeals. After that, the parties reached a confidential settlement that fully resolved the matter.

2021

$12 Million-Plus Plaintiff’s Judgment in One of the First Post-Covid Jury Trials in Harris County

• Case: David M. Dunwoody, Jr. v. EnVen Energy Corp. et al., No. 2019-39608
• Venue: 151st District Court, Harris County
• Result: A final judgment for over $12 million

Background: Gibbs represented David Dunwoody, cofounder and former president of EnVen Energy, in a breach of contract dispute based on his employment agreement. Dunwoody sought damages for his severance benefits package, including the value of his unvested shares, which EnVen had refused to provide for more than two years. EnVen’s denial of the severance benefits was led by his fellow cofounder, who was much older and had come to resent Dunwoody’s rising influence in the company. Over time, the cofounder successfully forced Dunwoody out of the company. After Dunwoody resigned, EnVen hired a prominent New York law firm to come to Houston to implement a “scorched earth” strategy.

The Trial: The three-week jury trial was one of the first to be held in Harris County as the Covid-19 restrictions were easing in 2021. The jury was selected in the bowels of NRG Stadium, with the venire panel spaced socially distanced over provisional grandstands. The trial took place in a courtroom where the 12 jurors stayed six feet apart, wore plastic face masks and sat in the public gallery behind the counsel tables.

Outcome: In September 2021, the jury returned a verdict awarding Dunwoody damages exceeding $12 million. EnVen appealed the verdict and pursued a lawsuit against Dunwoody in Delaware, but both were unsuccessful. Finally, EnVen was compelled to pay the entire judgment, including substantial accrued interest.