More Stories

Trinity Industries told a Fifth Circuit panel last week that the record-smashing $663 million judgment against it should be reversed because any alleged violations of the False Claims Act regarding its highway guardrail design were inadvertent, minor and immaterial. “You say they are minor and they say they are killer,” Judge Patrick Higginbotham shot back. “I mean, come on.”

For 55 minutes last Wednesday, a three-judge panel showed that oral arguments intended to focus on lofty legal principles can be turned upside town when the judges instead decide to closely examine facts and evidence. This article examines the Fifth Circuit’s concerns in the Trinity FCA case, Trinity’s response and whether oral argument before a so-called “hot panel” of judges even matters.

Houston Houston-based Cameron International dropped a non-compete lawsuit against FMC Technologies Singapore after a federal judge determined Cameron’s non-compete agreement was overly broad and couldn’t be used to stop an ex-Cameron employee from working for Houston-based FMC Technologies. A similar non-complete case brought by Schlumberger against National Oilwell Varco is scheduled for trial in February in Harris County district court.

Trinity Industries believed the conservative, pro-business Fifth Circuit was its protective barricade against a massive $663 million False Claims Act judgment facing the Dallas-based company. But for 55 minutes Wednesday, the appeals court appeared to be more of a buzz saw than a shield for Trinity.

“The arguments you are making are not necessarily a winning argument,” Judge E. Grady Jolly told Trinity’s lawyers. The Fifth Circuit panel repeatedly raised doubts about Trinity’s legal and factual arguments. The Texas Lawbook has complete details.

The federal appeals court has reversed a $340 million antitrust judgment and placed significant limits on the activity to which antitrust laws apply. This case is a forceful reminder that a good business tort claim does not equate to a good antitrust claim – or, even any antitrust claim at all. It is also a reminder of two broader points about how the Fifth Circuit approaches business tort claims arising from federal law.