In this edition of Litigation Roundup, the U.S. Supreme Court on Monday granted a petition for writ of certiorari that Exxon Mobil and Suncor filed more than six months ago that could have a major impact on climate-change litigation the oil companies are facing nationwide. We also provide details on a San Antonio investment company executive who copped to a nearly $70 million Ponzi scheme and a wrongful death lawsuit against Valero stemming from a refinery fire.
The Litigation Roundup is a weekly feature highlighting the work Texas lawyers are doing inside and outside the state. Have a development we should include next week? Please let us know at tlblitigation@texaslawbook.net.
Travis County District Court
Texas Intervenes in Qui Tam Kickback Suit Against Sanofi
The state of Texas has decided to intervene in a lawsuit against Sanofi-Aventis US LLC, accusing the company of paying doctors kickbacks in order to encourage them to prescribe its medications to patients.
APBQR LLC filed the lawsuit in April 2025 and Texas filed its petition in intervention Feb. 13. The lawsuit targets two specific Sanofi programs: the Free Nurse Program and the Support Services Program. It alleges those free patient-support programs were used as “in-kind remuneration to include medical providers to prescribe Sanofi drugs over alternatives in violation of the [Texas Healthcare Program Fraud Prevention Act.]”
“These programs, marketed as ‘patient support,’ functioned as kickbacks that reduced providers’ costs for patient care and insurance navigation, creating financial incentives to drive Sanofi drug utilization in Texas Medicaid,” the petition in intervention reads.
In a statement, Attorney General Ken Paxton said, “Sanofi is in clear violation of Texas law that prohibits the exact type of kickback scheme that the company is actively engaging in.”
“The people of Texas deserve to know that the drugs they’re being prescribed are being given to them to best address their medical needs,” he said.
The case has been assigned to Travis County District Judge Cory Liu.
APBQR is represented by Samuel Baxter, Jennifer Truelove, Hannah Mirzoeff and Eric B. Halper of McKool Smith and Mark Lanier, Zeke DeRose, Robert Arthur and Ryan Ellis of The Lanier Law Firm.
Sanofi is represented by Michael A. Shaunessy of McGinnis Lochridge and Dawn McCord, Carrie Love, Alec P. Harris and Wayne B. Mason of Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath.
The case number is D-1-GN-25-002394.
Harris County District Court
Valero Draws Wrongful Death Suit
Valero Energy Corporation was sued on Friday by the family of a man who died from injuries sustained in a fire at the Valero refinery in Ardmore, Oklahoma, earlier this month.
Jesse Biscamp was working for UPS Industrial Services on Feb. 9 when the fire broke out, he suffered severe burns and died Feb. 11. The lawsuit is also seeking a restraining order that would give lawyers and investigators access to have the refinery equipment inspected and preserved. It is not clear from the lawsuit what caused the fire.
Muhammad S. Aziz of Abraham, Watkins, Nichols, Agosto, Aziz & Stogner, who represents Biscamp’s family, issued a statement accusing Valero of restricting access to evidence “by unilaterally moving inspection dates and limiting what equipment our experts can bring on site to conduct our investigation.
“Each stakeholder must get equal access to the evidence,” he said.
The case has been assigned to Harris County District Judge Denise Brown.
Biscamp’s widow, Larissa Quintanilla Biscamp, his minor child, his parents and his estate are also represented by Joe Kahla, William S. Morian Jr. and Matthew R. Morian of Morian Kahla Attorneys at Law.
Counsel for Valero had not filed an appearance as of Monday.
The case number is 2026-11598.
Hemphill County District Court
Xcel, Texas Enter Agreed Injunction in Smokehouse Creek Litigation
On Monday, the Texas attorney general announced an agreed temporary injunction has been reached in the lawsuit the state filed against Xcel Energy in December, accusing the company of causing the 2024 Smokehouse Creek Fire, the largest in the state’s history.
The injunction requires the utility company to replace certain dilapidated wooden utility poles and to inspect no fewer than 35,000 poles for possible replacement each year. Xcel issued a statement to The Lawbook Monday saying the agreement “largely tracks the pole-replacement procedures Xcel Energy proactively implemented two years ago, after the Smokehouse Creek fire.”
“We’re pleased to have had productive conversations with the Attorney General’s office in Texas,” the statement reads. “We’ll continue working with the state of Texas as we focus on the wildfire mitigation work to help keep the public safe.”
When the lawsuit was filed, Xcel issued a statement to The Lawbook that it was “deeply disappointed” by the decision to file suit.
“Though Xcel Energy disputes claims that it acted negligently in maintaining and operating its infrastructure, we accepted responsibility from the beginning and set up an expedited claims process,” the statement reads. “Even now, the work to fairly compensate those affected continues. To date, Xcel Energy has agreements for settlements totaling $361 million for 212 of 254 total claims made against the company.”
Xcel’s statement says it worked with the attorney general’s office “in good faith to try and find a consensus solution” after being approached earlier this year for more information.
“They chose to file litigation instead,” Xcel’s statement reads. “We will review this litigation and vigorously defend ourselves against these allegations.”
District Court Judge Steven R. Emmert is presiding over the case.
Xcel is represented by Prerak Shah of Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher and Kevin J. Orsini, Omid H. Nasab and Brittany L. Sukiennik of Cravath, Swaine & Moore.
Texas is represented by Scott Froman, Wesley S. Williams, Ian Lancaster, Shelby Thompson, Ariel San Miguel and Roel Torres of the attorney general’s office.
The case number is 7966.
Missouri Circuit Court, St. Louis
Two Texas Firms Help Steer $7.25B Monsanto Roundup Settlement
Waters Kraus Paul & Siegel and Williams Hart & Boundas are among the five law firms helping to orchestrate a proposed $7.25 billion settlement with Monsanto on behalf of plaintiffs who allege its Roundup pesticide harmed them.
Monsanto announced last week a proposal to resolve all current and future Roundup litigation alleging non-Hodgkin lymphoma injuries.
“The proposed class settlement agreement, together with the Supreme Court case, provides an essential path out of the litigation uncertainty and enables us to devote our full attention to furthering the innovations that lie at the core of our mission: Health for all, Hunger for none,” said Bill Anderson, CEO of Bayer. Bayer purchased Monsanto in 2018.
Anderson’s statement references the U.S. Supreme Court’s Jan. 16 decision to grant Monsanto’s petition for review in a Roundup case that asks it to decide whether the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act preempts the plaintiffs’ claims against it, which are based on state failure-to-warn theories.
Peter Kraus of Waters Kraus Paul & Siegel issued a statement praising the work of the lawyers from the five firms involved: Waters Kraus, Williams Hart, Motley Rice, Seeger Weiss and the Holland Law Firm.
“Our long-standing work in the Roundup litigation is what earned us a seat at the table in these negotiations,” he said. “This settlement provides a structure to address present and future claims so that all our Roundup clients will get an opportunity for compensation. It allows our clients to avoid litigation risks in an increasingly uncertain legal landscape.”
Another Texas law firm, Nachawati Law Group, which represents more than 4,200 plaintiffs who would be impacted by the proposed settlement, issued a statement supporting the deal.
“Recognizing their need for a fast and fair resolution of their claims, we approached the proposed national class settlement with an open mind and are cautiously optimistic that the framework laid out in the documents filed [last] week might finally deliver the type of compensation our Roundup clients deserve,” Majed Nachawati said. “Of course, much work remains to be done before a plan is actually approved by the St. Louis City Court, and there is always the possibility that provisions of the plan will be altered.”
Judge Timothy James Boyer is presiding over the case.
Monsanto is represented by James F. Bennett of Dowd Bennett.
The case number is 2622-CC00325, in the 22nd Judicial Circuit Court in St. Louis, Missouri.
Southern District of Texas
Second Brother Pleads Guilty to $17M Ponzi Scheme
Two brothers who orchestrated a $17 million Ponzi scheme that defrauded dozens of victims have both pleaded guilty to wire fraud for their roles in the crime.
Christopher Lopez, 40, of Katy, entered a guilty plea last week and his brother Jayson Lopez, 43, of Orlando, Florida, pleaded guilty in January. The brothers are also both defendants in a related lawsuit brought by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that has been stayed pending resolution of the criminal case since August 2021.
According to the Department of Justice, the brothers operated several companies, including Knight Nguyen Investments, Knight Advisory and Planning, Aevum Holdings, Exempt Management and Ping An Financial Services in furtherance, of the scheme. They would tell investors they had access to $2 billion in U.S. Treasury bonds that they could use to finance their clients’ businesses if they paid advance fees.
Prosecutors accuse the brothers of taking the money but never issuing the loans, defrauding more than 40 people out of about $17 million. The brothers are scheduled to be sentenced by U.S. District Judge Keith Ellison in April and May, respectively, and face up to 10 years in federal prison.
Christopher Lopez is represented by Dan Cogdell of Cogdell Law Firm. Jayson Lopez is represented by William Wynn of Fort Worth, John S. Wilson of Dallas and Nicole DeBorde of Hochglaube & DeBorde.
The criminal case is being prosecuted by Justin R. Martin of the Department of Justice.
In the SEC case, case number 4:21-cv-01586, Christopher Lopez is represented by Matthew Furse of Grable Martin, and Jayson Lopez is represented by Jeffrey Ansley of Vedder Price.
The case number is 4:21-cr-00301.
Houstonian Gets 10 Years for $60M Bank Fraud
A 44-year-old man who pleaded guilty to laundering proceeds from what prosecutors called a large-scale bank fraud has been sentenced to prison.
U.S. District Judge Keith Ellison sentenced Bun Khath to 120 months in prison Feb. 20, about one year after he pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit bank fraud. According to court documents, Khath would submit falsified loan applications backed by fraudulent equipment sales invoices, tax returns and bank statements.
Khath used shell companies and bank accounts to collect proceeds from the scheme and then laundered them by wiring the funds to coconspirators, according to the government.
Khath is represented by Chip Lewis and Erin Epley of Houston.
The case was prosecuted by Belinda A. Beek and Kristine E. Rollinson of the Department of Justice.
The case number is 4:23-cr-00328.
Western District of Texas
Investment Firm CEO Admits to $69.5M Ponzi Scheme
The former CEO of San Antonio-based investment firm DJE Texas Management Group has told federal prosecutors he is guilty of orchestrating a wire fraud scheme that bilked hundreds of investors out of nearly $70 million.
Devin Ward Elder, 47, ran what prosecutors called a “classic Ponzi” scheme for 26 months that involved 345 victims. Through DJE, which invested in multifamily apartments, flexible workspace units, land projects and commercial building projects, Elder would solicit investments by promising high returns with low risk. He also told victims he would “co-invest” his own money.
But in reality, he would use funds from some investors to pay purported returns to other investors. U.S. District Judge Fred Biery is scheduled to sentence Elder in June. He faces up to 20 years in prison.
Elder is represented by John S. Gilmore III of Goldstein & Orr.
The case is being prosecuted by Steven E. Seward, William R. Harris and Ray Gattinella of the Department of Justice.
The case number is 5:26-cr-00038.
V&E Gets $8.4M Win in Trade Secrets Jury Trial
A Vinson & Elkins team helped BCCK Engineering Inc. secure an $8.4 million jury verdict against a rival engineering firm in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas.
BCCK specializes in nitrogen-rejection unit technology and owns patents and trade secrets related to the technology. After an engineer and officer of BCCK resigned to start his own consulting firm, Charis Engineering, BCCK learned that Charis was bidding against it on a major NRU project. BCCK suspected that Charis might be competing against BCCK using its own confidential and proprietary technology and communicated this concern to the customer.
When the customer awarded the project to BCCK, Charis sued in June 2023, alleging that BCCK’s communications with the customer constituted tortious interference, unfair competition and business disparagement. BCCK lodged counterclaims in May 2025.
In January, the court granted BCCK’s motion for summary judgment on all three of Charis’s tort claims, concluding that there was no evidence to support the requisite findings of falsity or bad faith for the claims.
Following the ruling, the case proceeded to trial with only BCCK’s offensive claim for misappropriation of trade secrets at issue.
The jury sided with BCCK on Feb. 4, determining that it was owed $3.75 million for the trade secret theft and another $4.65 million in punitive damages because it found Charis’ misappropriation to be willful and malicious.
“This verdict sends a clear message that companies that invest significant resources in developing proprietary technology have the right to protect it,” Vinson & Elkins partner Chris Popov, who represented BCCK, said in a press release. “We are proud to have helped BCCK hold Charis accountable and to ensure that the integrity of innovation in the energy industry is upheld.”
U.S. District Judge David Counts presided over the case.
BCCK is also represented by Hilary Preston, Jeff Han, Liane Noble, Paige Wright and Maggie Eller of Vinson & Elkins.
Charis Engineering is represented by Brian Smith, Thomas Harkins, William Shellhorse and Decker Cammack of Whitaker Chalk Swindle & Schwartz, Randall Rouse of Lynch, Chappell & Alsup, and John Palmer of Naman Howell Smith & Lee.
This case number is 7:23-cv-00084.
Alexa Shrake contributed this report.
U.S. Supreme Court
Justices Will Hear Appeal in Climate Suits Against Oil Cos.
Suncor Energy and Exxon Mobil Corporation will get a chance to argue before the nation’s high court that state law claims it is currently facing in nationwide climate-change litigation cannot proceed.
“Energy companies that produce and sell fossil fuels are facing numerous lawsuits in state courts across the nation seeking billions of dollars in damages for injuries allegedly caused by the contribution of greenhouse-gas emissions to global climate change,” the petition reads. “But as the Court has recognized for over a century, the structure of our constitutional system does not permit a state to provide relief under state law for injuries allegedly caused by pollution emanating from outside the state.”
The companies filed a petition for writ of certiorari in August 2025 in the litigation brought by the city of Boulder, Colorado, and the petition was granted Feb. 23. Boulder accuses the companies of contributing to climate change and argues they should shoulder some of the associated costs.
“In addition to the question presented by the petition, the parties are directed to brief and argue the following question: Whether this Court has statutory and Article III jurisdiction to hear this case,” the court wrote in a docket entry announcing the granting of the petition.
The energy companies are challenging a Colorado Supreme Court ruling that allowed the state-law claims to move forward. They have argued that ruling is in direct conflict with Supreme Court precedent that held “regulation of interstate pollution is an inherently federal area necessarily governed by federal law, and Congress has not permitted, and indeed has preempted, resort to state law except for claims seeking relief for harms caused by in-state emissions.”
The case has garnered amicus attention from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the National Association of Manufacturers, House Majority Leader Steve Scalise, University of Virginia School of Law Professor Jason Johnston, the American Petroleum Institute, the American Tort Reform Association and the United States of America.
Suncor is represented by Hugh Gottschalk and Eric L. Robertson of Wheeler Trigg O’Donnell.
Exxon is represented by Kannon K. Shanmugam, William T. Marks, Jake L. Kramer, Emma R. White, Theodore V. Wells Jr., Daniel J. Toal and Yahonnes Cleary of Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison.
The city of Boulder is represented by Kevin K. Russell of Russell & Woofter and solo practitioner Marco Simons.
The case number is 25-170.
Craving more Texas Lawbook litigation coverage? Don’t worry, we’ve got you covered. Take a look at these stories you may have missed in the past few days.
The Court of Criminal Appeals last week refused to consider an appeal by a man who argued that his 1992 Collin County trial was tainted because the judge and prosecutor in his case were having a secret romantic affair.
A former prosecutor who is now a partner at Katten Munchin Rosenman spoke to The Lawbook about his representation of an 81-year-old former doctor in a kickback case that was dismissed by a federal judge earlier this month. The doctor was one of 10 accused in the case. Prosecutors moved to dismiss the case “in the interest of justice,” and U.S. District Judge Karen Gren Scholer granted the government’s motion and dismissed the case in its entirety.
Marking a milestone for the state judiciary, a Harris County jury late Friday night delivered the historic inaugural verdict in the Texas Business Court. Testimony began Feb. 10 in the lawsuit that pitted lawyer Albert Theodore “Ted” Powers against three members of the Berry family.
U.S. District Judge Wesley Hendrix granted summary judgment in favor of VSP Vision and San Antonio-based Visionworks, holding that House Bill 1696, which banned entities like VSP from communicating directly with their customers or plan members about cost-savings programs if those efforts were viewed as steering clients toward specific in-network providers, violates the First Amendment.
A jury in Chambers County last week cleared Brown & Root of wrongdoing in a trade secrets lawsuit that was seeking as much as $258 million in damages. Ahmad, Zavitsanos & Mensing partner Joe Ahmad spoke with The Lawbook after the big win in the case brought by CAM Industrial Solutions.
The law firm Wilson, Elser, Moskowitz, Edelman & Dicker was ordered by a Harris County district court judge last week to pay $102,000 in sanctions for conduct in a personal injury case brought by a man who fell outside the Toyota Center after attending a Rockets game.
Echoing arguments made by opponents of the creation of the Texas Business Court, Houston lawyer Tony Buzbee has filed a motion arguing that the structure of the court is unconstitutional and that his client’s race discrimination case does not belong there.
Lawyers for four U.S. technology companies, including Texas Instruments, won a preliminary battle Wednesday to move lawsuits brought by five Ukrainian citizens who claim that microchips, processors and programmable devices made by the four companies are being used by the Russian military in its war against Ukraine.
Jurors in Dallas who were seated for the first Business Court trial there did not end up getting a chance to decide the case. Judge Andrea Bouressa granted the defense’s motion for directed verdict after the plaintiff rested following one day of testimony. A former federal prosecutor and a Dallas-based criminal defense attorney received misdemeanor probation after pleading guilty to a scheme involving deleting text messages they were ordered to produce to the court.