Appeals Court Rules Hunton & Williams Law Firm Can Be Sued Over $150 Million Frac Sand Deal

Share Article

The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals today ruled ousted frac sand supplier, Minerals Development & Supply Company, can sue the law firm of Hunton & Williams and their clients Superior Silica Sands, LLC and its owners for their fraudulent activity, in state court overturning a Wisconsin’s court decision that dismissed the $150 million case last year.

The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals ruled ousted frac sand supplier, Minerals Development & Supply Company, can sue the law firm of Hunton & Williams and their clients Superior Silica Sands, LLC and its owners for their fraudulent activity, in state court overturning a Wisconsin’s court decision that dismissed the $150 million case last year.

Ousted supplier claims attorneys from Hunton & Williams, a Virginia based law firm, tortuously interfered with its supply of frac sand while Hunton & Williams was representing Superior Silica Sands, LLC and its owners, Insight Equity, a Southlake, Texas private equity firm.

Shortly after the supplier was ousted, Superior Silica Sands, LLC built a new frac sand processing facility of its own in New Auburn, Wisconsin. The ousted supplier has sued Hunton & Williams and their clients for $150 million, the amount of the contract. Attorneys are further seeking punitive damages for Hunton & Williams and Superior Silica Sands fraudulent activities.

Minerals Development & Supply Company will be filing an amended complaint in state court adding Lester Pines of Cullen Weston Pines & Bach, a Madison Wisconsin law firm representing Hunton & Williams, as a defendant for his failure to disclose his relationship with former Appellate Judge Gordon Myse in an arbitration matter concerning the parties.

Public Comments are available from Daniel F. Konicek, of Konicek & Dillon, P.C. Attorney at Law, Chicago, Illinois. 630-262-9656 or Dan(at)konicekdillonlaw(dot)com.

Case: Minerals Development & Supply v. Hunton & Williams LLP, et al
Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, Case Number 11-3460

Share article on social media or email:

View article via:

Pdf Print

Contact Author

Visit website