Saturday, August 18, 2007

"Title VII settlement with Bell and Hoeffner,"- $262,500.00, $312,500.00, $265,500.00, $312,500.00

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COLRT souUthn ~ite:dn DSi tsattreicst CoOf UT*B MBS
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
- HOUSTON DIVISION JllN 2 5 2007
Michael N. M~lby,C lerk of
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 8
8 07Cc 2- 2-3 8 Count 1 : 18 USC 37 1-Conspiracy
8 Count 2: 18 USC 1956(h)-Conspiracy
8 to Money Launder
8 Count 3 & 4: 18 USC 1343-Wire Fraud
v. 8 Counts 5 - 8: 18 USC 1341 ail Fraud
8 Counts 9 - 14: 18 USC 1957- Monetary
,WARREN TODD HOEFFNER 8 Transactions with Criminally Derived
RACHEL ROSSOW 5 Property
JOHN PRESTAGE 8 Notice of Criminal Forfeiture
INDICTMENT
TKE'GRAND JURY CHARGES:
COUNT ONE
(Conspiracy, 1 8 U.S.C. 3 7 1)
A. INTRODUCTION
At all times material to this indictment:
The Hartford Insurance Companv
1. The Hartford Insurance Company ("The Hartford") located in Hartford,
Connecticut, is one of the largest investment and insurance companies in the
United States, and offers business insurance among othAlign Centerer products. The Hartford
insured a number of companies which were manufacturers, sellers, andlor
distributors of silica containing products or related protective equipment and
safety products. These companies included Pulmosan, Pauli and Griffin, Gifford
Hill, Humble Sand, Ideal - Basic, Mine Safety Appliances ("MSA"), Oglebay
Norton, Empire Abrasives and Specialty Sand (the "Insureds").
2. The department of The Hartford known as Claim and Legal
Management Services ("CaLMS") handled general liability lawsuits and claims
against The Hartford's Insureds that involved latent injuries related to exposure to
asbestos and silica, and other latent injuries that spanned multiple policy periods.
3. Within The Hartford's CaLMS department was a Functional Claim
Team section. The Functional Claim Team section consisted of several teams of
"claim handlers," each supervised by a team leader, all working toward the
management and settlement of claims against The Hartford's Insureds. The
Functional Claim Team section referred to the Insureds that had claims brought
against them as their "Accounts."
The Defendants
4. Warren Todd Hoefher ("Hoefher"), defendant herein, was the general
partner of Hoefher & Bilek, LLP ("Hoeffner & Bilek"), a law firm in Houston,
Texas. Hoefher represented individuals who brought silica-related claims against
The Hartford's Insureds.
5. Rachel Rossow ("Rossow"), defendant herein, was an employee of The
Hartford occupying a position of trust and responsibility from April 10,2000, until
on or about Septerrlber 17, 2003. During Rossow's employment with The Hartford
she earned a salary ranging from approximately $75,000 to $85,000 per year. From
November 2000 until the time of her dismissal, Rossow was a team leader in the
CaLMS department. As a team leader, Rossow supervised several claim handlers,
including John Prestage. Rossow was responsible for settling claims and for
recommending to The Hartford appropriate and cost effective amounts to settle
claims against The Hartford's Insureds whose accounts were under her
supervision.
6. John Prestage ("Prestage"), defendant herein, was an employee of The
Hartford occupying a position of trust and responsibility fiom December 18,2000
through on or about January 17,2004, as a CaLMS claims consultant assigned to
various Accounts by Rossow. During his employment at The Hartford, Prestage
earned a salary ranging from approximately $45,000 to $69,000 per year. Prestage
was responsible for settling claims and for recommending to The Hartford
appropriate and cost effective amounts to settle claims against The Hartford's
Insureds whose accounts were assigned to him.
The Claims and The Hartford
7. Hoeffner & Bilek, along with other law f m s , represented hundreds of
individuals who claimed that they had silicosis and/or other silica-related diseases.
Hoefher & Bilek combined their various silicosis clients with like clients of other
attorneys or firms and filed joint claims andor civil lawsuits against
manufacturers, sellers and/or distributors of silica containing products or related
protective equipment and safety products.
8. Hoefher & Bilek represented hundreds of claimants, who ostensibly
suffered fiom silica-related diseases, and who brought claims against the
following eight businesses which were insured by The Hartford and other
insurance companies: Pulmosan, Pauli & Griffin, Gifford Hill, Humble Sand, Ideal
Basic, Mine Safety Appliances ("MSA"), Oglebay Norton and Empire Abrasives
(the "Insureds" or Accounts").
9. As team leader and first line supervisor, Rossow supe~sedan d
managed seven of eight Accounts. Rossow assigned Prestage to the following five
Accounts: Pulmosan, Pauli & Griffin, Gifford Hill, Humble Sand and Ideal Basic.
10. On or about February 26,2002, Hoefher called a meeting in New
Hampshire for all major insurance carriers involved in silica litigation against The
Hartford and other insurance companies. Prestage attended this meeting on behalf
of The Hartford. At this meeting, Hoeffier proposed to settle all of his clients'
silica-related claims.
1 1. Defendant Hoeffher would and did represent Specialty Sand, a
policyholder of The Hartf-o rd, in connection with threatened legal action against
The Hartford regarding its insurance coverage provided to Specialty Sand relating
to silica lawsuits pending against Specialty Sand. Hoeffher also represented
individuals who filed claims against Specialty Sand.
B. THE CONSPIRACY
12. From in or about February 2002 and continuing through in or about
November 2004, in the Houston Division of the Southern District of Texas and
elsewhere, the defendants,
WARREN TODD HOEFFNER,
RACHEL ROSSOW, and
JQ$$+J pDOQTAGg - _- _ -- -- - __ -- -
did knowingly combine, conspire, confederate and agree with each other and
others known and unknown to the Grand Jury to commit the following offenses
against the United States:
a. To knowingly devise and intend to devise a scheme and artifice to
defraud and to obtain money by means of false and fraudulent
pretenses, representations and promises and knowingly to use and
cause to be used the United States mail and private and commercial
interstate carriers for the purpose of executing the scheme &d artifice
to defkaud, in- violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1341;
b. To knowingly devise and intend to devise a scheme and artifice to
defkaud and to obtain money by means of false and fraudulent
pretenses, representations and promises and knowingly to transmit
and cause to be transmitted by means of wire, radio or television
communication, writings, signs, signals, pictures, or sounds for the
purpose of executing such scheme or artifice, in violation of Title 18,
United States Code, Section 1343.
C. THE MANNER AND MEANS
It was a part of the conspiracythat:
13. Defendants Hoeffner, Rossow and Prestage would and did meet
together in various places including Laguna Beach, California, New York City,
Palm Beach, Florida, and Nashville, Tennessee, and communicate by cell phones,
during the negotiation of the settlement of claims of Hoeffner's clients, the
majority of which were managed andlor supervised by Rossow and Prestage.
14. Defendant Hoeffner would and did make payments to defendants
Rossow and Prestage, through bribes and kickbacks, for recommending to The
Hartford that The Hartford pay certain amounts to settle the claims of his clients
6,
against The Hartford's Insureds and The Hartford.
15. Defendants Hoeffher, Rossow and Prestage would and did falsely
promise, pretend and represent to The Hartford, directly and through their agents,
in interstate and intrastate telephone conversations, by electronic mail ("email"), in
documents sent by and through the United States mail and interstate and
international carriers, and by authorizing checks in certain amounts for settlement
payments, that the settlement amounts of the claims against The Hartford's
Insureds and The Hartford were appropriate amounts to settle the claims in the
best interests of The Hartford and its Insureds, well knowing that the defendants
intended that some of that money (the "Settlement Funds") would instead be
funneled by and through Hoeffner to Rossow and Prestage, employees of The
Hartford.
16. Defendants would and did induce The Hartford to pay more than
$34,000,000.00 in Settlement Funds, knowing that more than $3,000,000.00 of
those funds would be used to pay bribes and kickbacks to Rossow and Prestage.
Rossow received approximately $2,68 1,873.79 in bribes and kickbacks. Prestage
received approximately $764,476.21 in bribes and kickbacks. Additionally,
Hoeffher received approximately $5,366,839.20 in attorney's fees paid out of the
Settlement Funds.
D. OVERTACTS
In furtherance of th-e conspiracy and to effect the objects thereof, the
defendants committed the following overt acts, among others:
(1) On or about August 29,2002, defendant Hoefher charged and caused
to be charged to an American Express account in his name two round trip airline
tickets on Delta Airlines from Hartford, Connecticut, to West Palm Beach, Florida,
one for defendant Rossow and one for defendant Prestage.
(2) On or about September 6,2002, defendant Hoefher caused $97,000.00
to be transferred by wire from his personal money market investment account at
Secured Trust Bank in Tyler, Texas, to Fleet Bank in Hartford, Connecticut, for
the benefit of New Country Motors, Inc. to purchase two BMW automobiles, one
each for defendants Rossow and Prestage.
(3) On or about September 9,2002, defendant Prestage signed a delivery
agreement at New Country Motors in Hartford, Connecticut, for a new 2002 BMW
530ia automobile with a total sales price of approximately $46,876.00.
(4) On or about October 30,2002, defendant Rossow signed a delivery
agreement with New Country Motors in Hartford, Connecticut, for a 2003 BMW
530ia automobile with a total sales price of approximately $50,124.00.
(5) On or about November 22,2002, defendant Hoeffher caused The
8
Hartford's check #077568595, payable to Hoefher & Bilek Trust Account, dated
November 20,2002, in th-e amount of $2,000,000.00 (memo: "Humble First
Payment") to be deposited into Hoefher and Bilek's IOLTA Foundation Trust
Account at American Bank in Corpus Christi, Texas.
(6) On or about November 26,2002, defendant Hoeffher signed check
# 1 35 1 payable to John Prestage in the amount of $262,500.00, with the memo
"Title VII settlement with Bell and Hoeffner," drawn on Hoefher & Bilek's
IOLTA Foundation Trust Account at American Bank in Corpus Christi, Texas.
(7) On or about November 26, 2002, defendant Prestage deposited and
caused to be deposited check #I35 1 payable to John Prestage in the amount of
$262,500.00, drawn on Hoefher & Bilek's IOLTA Foundation Trust Account into
his personal account at American Savings Bank in Connecticut.
(8) On or about November 26,2002, defendant Hoeffher signed check
#I352 payable to "Rachael Rossowy' in the amount of $3 12,500.00, with the memo
"Title VII settlement with Bell and Hoefher," drawn on Hoefher & Bilek's
IOLTA Foundation Trust Account at American Bank in Corpus Christi, Texas.
(9) On or about February 4,2003, defendant Hoefher signed check #I360
payable to John Prestage in the amount of $265,500.00, with the memo "Final
Title VII Settlement re: Bell and Hoefher," drawn on Hoefher & Bilek's IOLTA
9
Foundation Trust Account at American Bark in Corpus Christi, Texas.
(1 0) On or about F- ebruary 4,2003, defendant Hoeffner signed check
#I361 payable to "Rachael Rossow" in the amount of $3 12,500.00, with the memo
"Final Title VII Settlement re: Bell and Hoeffner," drawn on Hoeffner & Bilek's
IOLTA Foundation Trust Account at American Bank in Corpus Christi, Texas.
(1 1) On or about February 5,2003, defendant Hoefher caused The
Hartford's check #077926564, payable to Hoefher & Bilek Trust Account, dated
February 3,2003, in the amount of $2,000,000.00 (memo: "Final Pymt Humble
Global Settlement") to be deposited into Hoefher and Bilek's IOLTA Foundation
Trust Account at American Bank in Corpus Christi, Texas.
(12) On or about February 6,2003, defendant Prestage deposited and
caused to be deposited into his personal account at American Savings Bank in
Connecticut check #I360 payable to John Prestage, in the amount of $265,500.00,
drawn on Hoeffner & Bilek's IOLTA Foundation Trust Account at American
Bank in Corpus Christi, Texas.
(13) On or about February 6,2003, defendant Hoefher caused to be
deposited into Hoeffner and Bilek's IOLTA Trust account at Southwest Bank of
I ~ Texas in Houston, Texas, The Hartford's checks #077926483 and #077926472,
both payable to Hoeffner & Bilek Trust Account, and both in the amount pf
$295,3 12.50; The Hartford check #077926 18 1, payable to Hoeffner & Bilek LLP,
in the amount of $1 17,000.00; and Horizon, a subsidiary of The 'Hartford, check
#96755383, payable to Hoeffner & Bilek in the amount of $1,987,720.28.
(14) On or about February 20,2003, defendant Hoeffner caused The
Hartford's check #077926494, payable to Hoefher & Bilek, LLP Trust Account,
dated January 30, 2003, in the amount of $1 45,000.00 (memo: "Gifford Hill East
Texas") to be deposited into Hoeffner and Bilek's IOLTA Trust Account at
Southwest Bank of Texas in Houston, Texas.
(15) On or about February 20,2003, defendant Hoeffner signed check
#2883 payable to Rachel Rossow in the amount of $25,000.00, drawn on Hoeffner
& Bilek's IOLTA Trust Account at Southwest Bank of Texas in Houston, Texas.
(16) On or about February 25,2003, defendant Rossow deposited and
caused to deposited check #I352 payable to "Rachael Rossow," dated November
26,2002, in the amount of $3 12,500.00, signed by defendant Hoeffner, drawn on
Hoefher & Bilek's IOLTA Foundation Trust Account into her personal checking
account at Windsor Federal Savings & Loan in Connecticut.
(1 7) On or about February 26,2003, defendant Hoeffner signed check
#2884 payable to Rachel Rossow in the amount of $148,750.00, drawn on
Hoefher& Bilek's IOLTA Trust Account at Southwest Bank of Texas in
Houston, Texas.
(1 8) On or about M- arch 3,2003, defendant Rossow deposited and caused
to be deposited into her new Jumbo Money Market account at Windsor Federal
Savings & Loan in Connecticut, the following checks, all made payable to her, and
signed by defendant Hoefher, check #I36 1, dated February 4,2003, in the
amount of $3 12,500.00, drawn on Hoefher & Bilek's IOLTA Foundation Trust
Account at American Bank; check #2883, dated February 20,2003, in the amount
of $25,000.00, drawn on Hoeffner & Bilek's IOLTA Trust Account at Southwest
Bank of Texas; and check #2884, dated February 26,2003, in the amount of
$148,750.00, drawn on Hoeffher & Bilek's IOLTA Trust Account at Southwest
Bank of Texas.
(1 9) On or about June 16,2003, defendant Hoeffher charged and caused
to be charged to an American Express account in his name two round trip airline
tickets on US Airways fi-om Hartford, Connecticut, to Santa Ana, California, one
for defendant Rossow and one for defendant Prestage.
(20) On or about July 17,2003, defendant Hoefher caused two checks
from Horizon, a subsidiary of The Hartford, check #9675 6206, payable to
Hoefher & Bilek Trust Account, in the amount of $58,000.00, and check
#96756207, payable to Hoeffher and Bilek Trust Account, in the amount of
12
-
$46,000.00, to be deposited into Hoefher and Bilek's IOLTA Foundation Trust
account at American Bank in Corpus Chnsti, Texas.
(21) On or about July 28,2003, defendant Prestage deposited and caused
to be deposited into his personal account at Banknorth in Connecticut, check
#I086 payable to John Prestage, dated July 20,2003, in the amount of $8,000.00,
signed by defendant Hoeffner, drawn on Hoeffner's personal bank account at
Sterling Bank in Houston, Texas, with the memo "loan."
(22) On or about September 3,2003, defendant Rossow deposited and
caused to be deposited into her new Jumbo Money Market account at Windsor
Federal Savings & Loan in Connecticut, check #I091 payable to "Rachael
Rossow," dated July 20,2003, in the amount of $8,000.00, signed by defendant
Hoefher, drawn on Hoeffner's personal bank account at Sterling Bank in
Houston, Texas, with "loan" written in the memo section.
(23) On or about November 20,2003, defendant Hoefher caused The
Hartford to wire transfer $10,000,000.00 from Fleet National Bank in Haftford,
Connecticut, to the bank account of Specialty Sand Qualified Settlement Fund
Trust at Bank of Texas in Dallas, Texas.
(24) On or about November 25,2003, defendant Hoefher caused
$583,887.42 to be wire transferred from the bank account of Specialty Sand at
Bank of Texas in Dallas, Texas, to Hoefher and Bilek's IOLTA Foundation Trust
Account at American Bank in Corpus Christi, Texas.
(25) On or about December 5,2003, defendant Hoefher caused
$3,000,000.00 to be wire transferred from the bank account of Specialty Sand
Qualified Settlement Fund Trust at Bank of Texas in Dallas, Texas, to Hoefher
and Bilek's IOLTA Foundation Trust Account at American Bank in Corpus
Christi, Texas. ,
(26) On or about December 5,2003, defendant Hoefher wrote and caused
to be written check #I369 made payable to "Rachael Rossow" in the amount of
$1,675,000.00 drawn on the account of Hoeffner and Bilek IOLTA Foundation
Trust Account at American Bank in Corpus Christi, Texas, with the notation in the
memo section of the check, "Final title VII settlement - Part I."
(27) On or about December 5,2003, defendant Rachel Rossow deposited
and caused to be deposited into a personal investment account at SmithBarney in '
Connecticut check #I369 made payable to "Rachael Rossow" in the amount of
$1,675,000.00 drawn on the account of Hoefher and Bilek's IOLTA Foundation
Trust Account at American Bank.
(28) On or about January 6,2004, defendant Hoeffner caused to be issued
check # 10756 payable to "John Prestige" in the amount of $6,600.00 drawn on the
14
account of Hoefher & Bilek at Southwest Bank of Texas in Houston, Texas.
(29) On or about J-anuary 8, 2004, defendant Prestage deposited and caused
to be deposited check #lo756 payable to him in the amount of $6,600.00 drawn on
the account of Hoefher & Bilek at Southwest Bank of Texas in Houston, Texas,
into a checking account at Banknorth in Connecticut.
(30) On or about March 15,2004, defendant Hoeffher caused The Hartford
to wire transfer $10,000,000.00 from Fleet National Bank in Hartford,
Connecticut, to the bank account of Specialty Sand Qualified Settlement Fund
Trust at Bank of Texas in Dallas, Texas.
(3 1) On or about April 6,2004, defendant Hoeffner caused $4,000,000.00
to be wire transferred from the bank account of the Specialty Sand Qualified
Settlement Fund Trust at Bank of Texas in Dallas, Texas, to Hoefher and Bilek's
IOLTA Foundation Trust Account at American Bank in Corpus Christi, Texas.
(32) On or about April 7,2004, defendant Hoeffher wire transferred and
caused to be wire transferred $1 50,000.00 from the Hoeffner & Bilek IOLTA
Foundation Trust Account at American Bank in Corpus Christi, Texas, to
defendant Rossow's checking account at Windsor Federal Savings and Loan in
Windsor, Connecticut.
(33) On or about April 12,2004, defendant Hoeffner purchased and
caused to be purchased a Sterling Bank cashier's check in the amount of
$125,000.00 payable to the United States Treasury with the remitter listed as John
Prestage and Warren T. Hoefher.
(34) On or about November 6,2004, defendant Prestage wrote check
#I91 9 in the amount of $66,000.00 payable to the United States Treasury on his
account at Banknorth in Connecticut.
In violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 37 1.
COUNT TWO
(Conspiracy to Money Launder, 18 U.S.C. 5 1956(h))
A. INTRODUCTION
1. The Grand Jury realleges and incorporates by reference, as though set out
at length herein, paragraphs 1 through 11 and paragraphs 13 through 16 of Count
One of the Indictment.
B. CONSPIRACY TO MONEY LAUNDER
2. From in or about February 2002 and continuing through in or about
November 2004, in the Houston Division of the Southern District of Texas and
elsewhere,
WARREN TODD HOEFPNER,
RACHEL ROSSOW,
and
JOHN PRESTAGE
defendants herein, together with others known and unknown to the Grand Jury,
did knowingly combine, conspire, confederate and agree among themselves and
with one another to commit the following offenses against the United States:
a. To knowingly conduct and attempt to conduct financial transactions,
knowing that the property involved in the financial transactions
represented the proceeds of some form of unlawful activity, that is
wire fi-aud and mail fi-aud, knowing that the transactions were
designed in whole or in part to conceal, or disguise the nature, the
location, the source, the ownership, or the control of the proceeds of
specified'unlawful activity, in violation ofTitle 18, United States
Code, Section 1956(a)(l)(B)(i);
b. To knowingly conduct and attempt to conduct financial transactions
which involved the proceeds of a specified unlawful activity, with
the intent to promote the carrying on of specified unlawful activity,
that is wire fraud and mail fraud, and knowing that the property
involved in the financial transactions represented the proceeds of
some fonn of unlawful activity, in violation of Title 18, United States
Code, Sectio-n 1956(a)(l)(A)(i); and
c. To knowingly engage in and attempt to engage in monetary
transactions within the United States in criminally derived
. , property that iS of a value greater than $10,000 and is derived from
specified unlawful activity, that is wire fraud and mail fraud, in
violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1957.
In violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1956(h).
COUNT THREE
(Wire Fraud - 18 USC 5 1343)
A. INTRODUCTION
1. The Grand Jury realleges and incorporates by reference as though set out
at length herein, paragraphs 1 through 11 of Count One of the Indictment.
2. On or about September 26,2002, defendant Hoeffher arranged to
purchase from New Country Motors in Hartford, Connecticut two BMW '
automobiles, one to be delivered to defendant Rossow and one to be delivered to
defendant Prestage, during defendant Hoefher's negotiations with The Hartford
I on the settlement of claims of his clients against The Hartford and its Insureds,
~ 18
whose Accounts were managed or supervised by defendants Rossow and Prestage
on behalf of The'Hartford-.
3. On or about September.9,2002, defendant Prestage accepted delivery of
the BMW automobile purchased for him by defendant Hoeffier.
4. On or about October 22,2002, defendant Rossow accepted delivery of
the BMW automobile purchased for her by defendant Hoefher.
B. THE SCHEME AND ARTIFICE TO DEFRAUD
5. Beginning in or about February 2002 and continuing to in or about
November 2004, in the Houston Division of the Southern District of Texas and
elsewhere, the defendants
WARREN TODD HOEFFNER,
RACHEL ROSSOW,
and
JOHN PRESTAGE
and others, known and unknown to the Grand Jury, each aiding and abetting one
another, did knowingly devise and intend to devise a scheme and artifice to
defraud The Hartford and to deprive The Hartford of its right to the honest
services of Prestage and Rossow, and to obtain money and property from The
Hartford by means of false and fraudulent pretenses, representations and promises,
and attempting to do so, including the concealment of material facts. .
C. MANNER AND M-E ANS
It was part of the scheme and artifice to defraud that:
6. Defendants Hoefher, Rossow andprestage would and didmeet together
in various places including Laguna Beach, California, New York City, Palm
Beach, Florida, and Nashville, Tennessee, and communicate by cell phones,
during the negotiation of the settlement of claims of Hoefker's clients which were
managed andlor supe~sedby Rossow and Prestage.
7. Defendant Hoefher would and did make payments to defendants
Rossow and Prestage, through bribes and luckbacks, for recommending to The
Hartford that The Hartford pay certain amounts to settle the claims of his clients
against The Hartford's Insureds and The Hartford.
8. Defendants Hoefher, Rossow and Prestage would and did falsely
promise, pretend and represent to The Hartford, directly and through their agents,
in interstate and intrastate telephone conversations, by electronic mail ("email"), in
documents sent by and through the United States mail and interstate and
international carriers, and by authorizing checks in certain amounts for settlement
payments, that the settlement amounts of the claims against The Hartford's
Insureds were appropriate amounts to settle the claims in the best interests of The
Hartford and its Insureds, well knowing that the defendants intended that some of
that money (the "Settleme-n t Funds") would instead be funneled by and through
Hoeffner to Rossow and Prestage, employees of The Hartford.
9. Defendants would and did induce The Hartford to pay more than
$34,000,000.00 in Settlement Funds, knowing that more than $3,000,000.00 of
those funds would be used to pay bribes and kickbacks to Rossow and Prestage.
Rossow received approximately $2,68 1,873.79 in bribes and kickbacks. Prestage
received approximately $764,476.2 1 in bribes and kickbacks. Additionally,
Hoeffner received approximately $5,366,839.20 in attorney's fees paid out of the
Settlement Funds.
D. EXECUTION OF THE SCHEME AND ARTIFICE
10. On or about September 6, 2002, in the Houston Division of the
Southern District of Texas and elsewhere, defendants
WARREN TODD HOEFFNER,
and
JOHN PRESTAGE
and others, known and unknown to the Grand Jury, each aiding and abetting one
another, for purposes of executing and attempting to do so, knowingly transmitted
and caused to be transmitted by means of wire, radio, and television
communication, writings,- signs, signals, pictures, and sounds, that is $97,000.00
transferred by wire from defendant Hoefher's personal money market investment
account at Secured Trust Bank (now Texas State Bank) in Tyler, Texas, to Fleet
Bank in Hartford, Connecticut for the benefit'of New Country Motors, Inc. in
Hartford, Connecticut.
In violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1343, 1346 and 2.
COUNT FOUR
(1 8 U.S.C. 1343 - Wire Fraud)
A. INTRODUCTION
1. The Grand Jury realleges and incorporates by reference, as though set out
at length herein, paragraphs 1 through 11 of Count One and paragraphs 2 through
4 of Count Three of the Indictment.
B. THE SCHEME AND ARTIFICE TO DEFRAUD
2. Beginning in or about February 2002 and continuing to in or about
November 2004, in the Houston Division of the Southern District of Texas and
elsewhere, the defendants
WARREN TODD HOEFFNER,
RACHEL ROSSOW,
- and
JOHN PRESTAGE
and others, known and unknown to the Grand Jury, each aiding and abetting one
another, did knowingly devise and intend to devise a scheme and artifice to
defraud The Hartford and to deprive The Hartford of its right to the honest
services of Prestage and Rossow, and to obtain money and property from The
Hartford by means of false and fraudulent pretenses, representations and promises,
and attempting to do so, including the concealment of material facts.
C. MANNER AND MEANS
3. The Grand Jury realleges and incorporates by reference, as though set
out at length herein, paragraphs 6 through 9 of Count Three.
D. EXECUTION OF THE SCHEME AND ARTIFICE
4. On or about April 7,2004, in the Houston Division of the Southern
District of Texas and elsewhere, defendants
WARREN TODD HOEFFNER,
RACHEL ROSSOW,
and
JOHN PRESTAGE
and others, known and unknown to the Grand Jury, each aiding and abetting one
another, for the purpose o-f executing the aforesaid described scheme and artifice
to defraud, and attempting to do so, knowingly transmitted and caused to be
transmitted by means of wire, radio, and television communication, writings,
signs, signals, pictures, and sounds, that is $150,000.00 transferred by wire from
the Hoeffner & Bilek IOLTA Foundation Trust Account at American Barik in
Corpus Christi, Texas to the account of defendant Rossow at Windsor Federal
Savings and Loan in Connecticut.
In violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1343, 1346 and 2. .
COUNTS FIVE through EIGHT
(18 U.S.C. 1341 - Mail Fraud)
A. INTRODUCTION
1. The Grand Jury realleges and incorporates by reference, as though set
forth in full herein, paragraphs 1 through 1 1 of Count One and paragraphs 2
through 4 of Count Three of this Indictment.
B. THE SCHEME AND ARTIFICE TO DEFRAUD
2. Beginning in or about February 2002 and continuing to in or about
November 2004, in the Houston Division of the Southern District of Texas and
elsewhere, the defendants-
WARREN TODD HOEFFNER,
RACHEL ROSSOW,
I
and
JOHN PRESTAGE
and others, known and unknown to the Grand Jury, each aiding and abetting one
another, did knowingly devise and intend to devise a scheme and artifice to
defraud The Hartford and to deprive The Hartford of its right to the honest
services of Prestage and Rossow, and to obtain money and property fi.om,The
Hartford by means of false and fraudulent pretenses, representations and promises,
and attempting to do so, including the concealment of material facts.
C. THE MANNER AND MEANS
3. The Grand jury realleges and incorporates by reference as though set
forth in full herein,~ara~ra6~ hthsro ugh 9 of Count Three. ' .
D. EXECUTION OF THE SCHEME AND ARTIFICE
4. On or about the dates set out in the Counts below, in the Houston
Division of the Southern District of Texas, and elsewhere, defendants
WARREN TODD HOEFFNER,
RACHEL ROSSOW,
and
JOHN PRESTAGE
and others hown and unknown to the Grand Jury, each aiding and abetting one
another, for the purpose of executing the aforesaid scheme and artifice to defraud
and attempting to do so, did knowingly cause to be sent and delivered by the
United States Postal Service, and private or commercial interstate carriers, as
described below according to the directions thereon, and did howingly take and
receive and cause' to be taken and received therefrom the following matters and
things set out in the counts below:
COUNT DATE MAILICARRIER MATTER
Count Five Check number
077568595 from
The Hartford i/a/o
$2,000,000
payable to
Hoefher & Bilek
Trust Account
November 20,
2002
Airborne Express
In violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1341, 1346 and 2.
Check numbers
077926472 and
077926483 from
The Hartford both
i/a/o $295,3 12.50
and both payable
to Hoeffner &
Bilek Trust
Account
Check number
077926494 from
The Hartford i/do
$145,000.00
payable to
Hoeffner & Bilek,
LLP Trust
Account
Check number
077926564 from
The Hartford i/do
$2,000,000
payable to
Hoeffner & Bilek
Trust Account
Count Six
Count Seven
Count Eight
January 29,2003
-
January 30,2003
February 3,2003
United States
Postal Service
Federal Express
Federal Express
COUNTS NINE through TWELVE
(1 8 U.S.C. 1957(a) - Monetary Transactions Involving
Property Derived from Specified Unlawful Activity)
A. INTRODUCTION
1. The Grand Jury realleges and incorporates by reference, as though set
forth in full herein, paragraphs 1 through 1 1 of Count One and paragraphs 2
through 4 of Count Three of this Indictment.
B. MONETARY TRANSACTIONS
2. On or about each of the dates set out in the counts below, in the Houston
Division of the Southern District of Texas and elsewhere, defendants
WARREN TODD HOEFFNER,
RACHEL ROSSOW,
and
JOHN PRESTAGE
and others known and unknown to the Grand Jury, each aiding and abetting one
another, did knowingly engage in, and attempt to engage in, a monetary
transaction affecting interstate commerce in criminally derived property of a value
greater than $10,000, that is, the transfer by check drawn on the Hoefher & Bilek
Trust Account, styled "IOLTA Foundation Trust Account," at American Bank in
Corpus Christi, Texas, a financial institution engaged in interstate commerce, in
2 8
the amounts to the payees indicated below, such finds having been derived fiom
specified unlawfhl activity, that is mail fraud, in violation of Title 18, United
States Code, Section 134 1 :
COUNT DATE Check No. Payee Amount
Nine November 26,2002 1351 John Prestage $262,500.00
Ten Novernber26,2002 1352 Rachel Rossow $3 12,500.00
Eleven February 4,2003 1360 John Prestage $265,500.00
Twelve February 4,2003 1361 Rachel Rossow $3 12,500.00
In violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1957(a) and 2.
COUNT THIRTEEN
(1 8 U.S.C. 1 957(a) - Monetary Transactions Involving
Property Derived from Specified Unlawful Activity)
A. INTRODUCTION
1. The Grand Jury realleges and incorporates by reference, as though set
forth in full herein, paragraphs 1 through 11 of Count One and paragraphs 2
through 4 of Count Three of this Indictment.
B. MONETARY TRANSACTIONS
2. On or about December 5,2003, in the Houston Division of the Southern
District of Texas and elsewhere, defendants
-W ARREN TODD HOEFFNER, '
RACHEL ROSSOW,
and
JOHN PRESTAGE
and others known and unknown to the Grand Jury, each aiding and abetting one
another, did knowingly engage in, and attempt to engage in, a monetary
transaction a.ffecting interstate commerce in criminally derived property of a value
greater than $10,000, that is, the transfer by check #I369 in the amount of
$1,675,000.00 payable to defendant Rossow and drawn on the Hoeffher & Bilek
Trust Account, styled "IOLTA Foundation Trust Account," at American Bank in
Corpus ~hrishT, exas, a financial institution engaged in interstate commerce,
such h d s having been derived from specified unlawful activity, that is wire
fraud, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1343.
In violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1957(a) and 2.
COUNT FOURTEEN
(1 8 U.S .C. 1957(a) - Monetary Transactions Involving
Property D- erived from Specified Unlawful Activity)
A. INTRODUCTION
1. The Grand Jury realleges and incorporates by reference, as though set
forth in fill herein, paragraphs 1 through 1 1 of Count One and paragraphs 2
through 4 of Count Three of this Indictment.
B. MONETARY TRANSACTIONS
2. On or about April 7,2004, in the Houston Division of the Southern
District of Texas and elsewhere, defendants
WARREN TODD HOEFFNER,
RACHEL ROSSOW,
and
JOHN PRESTAGE
and others known and unknown to the Grand Jury, each aiding and abetting one
another, did knowingly engage in, and attempt to engage in, a monetary
transaction affecting interstate commerce in criminally derived property of a value
greater than $10,000, that is, the transfer by wire of $1 50,000 from the Hoefher &
Bilek Trust Account, styled "IOLTA Foundation Trust Account," at American
Bank in Corpus Christi, Texas, a financial institution engaged in interstate
commerce, to the checking account of defendant Rossow at Windsor Federal
Savings and Loan in Win-d sor, Connecticut, such funds having been derived from
specified unlawful activity, that is wire fraud, in violation of Title 18, United
States Code, Section 1343.
In violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1957(a) and 2.
NOTICE OF CRIMINAL FORFEITURE
(1 8 U.S.C. 5 98 1 (a)(l)(C) and 28 U.S.C. 5 2461)
Counts 1, 3-8
Pursuant to Title 28, United States Code, Section 2461(c), and Title 18,
United States Code, Section 98 l(a)(l)(C), as a result of the commission of
violations charged in Counts One, and Three through Eight of this Indictment, the
defendants
WARREN TODD HOEFRWR
RACHEL ROSSOW
JOHN PRESTAGE
are provided notice that upon conviction, all property which constitutes or is
derived from proceeds traceable to a violation of Title 18, United States Code,
Sections 1341, 1343, or a conspiracy to commit such offenses, shall be forfeited to
the United States. Such property includes, but is not limited to, the following:
(1) Approximately$8,8 13,189.20 in U.S. Currency, which represents the
proceeds obtained from the conspiracy as alleged in Count One of this
indictment;
(2) Approximately $8,8 13,189.20 in U.S. Currency, which represents the
proceeds obtained from the overall scheme as alleged in Counts Three
through Eight of this Indictment;
(3) All h d s in Citi Smith Barney, Account #xxx-xxx64- 16, in the name of
Rachel M. Rossow, including any interest, dividends or other monies
representing appreciated value of the initial investment;
(4) 2003 BMW 530ia Automobile, registered to Rachael M. Rossow; and
(5) 2003 Volvo XC90 Automobile, registered to John F. Prestage.
NOTICE OF CRIMINAL FORFEITURE
(18 U.S.C. 5 982(a)(1))
- Counts 2, 9- 14
Pursuant to Title 18, United States Code, Section 982(a)(1), as a result of
the commission of the violations charged in Counts Two and Counts Nine through
Fourteen of this Indictment, the defendants
WARREN TODD HOEPPNER
RACHEL ROSSOW
JOHN PRESTAGE
are provided notice that upon conviction, all property, real and personal, involved
in a violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1956(h) or 1957(a), and all
property traceable to such property, shall be forfeited to the United States. Such
property includes, but is not limited to, the following:
Count 2: (1) Approximately $8,813,189.20 in U.S. Currency, which
represents the money involved in, or traceable to, the money
laundering conspiracy;
(2) All funds in the Citi Smith Barney account,, previously
identified in this notice, including any interest, dividends or other
monies representing appreciated value of the initial investment;
(3) 2003 BMW 530ia Automobile, registered to Rachael M.
Rossow; and
(4) 2003 V- olvo XC90 Automobile, registered to John F. Prestage.
Counts 9, 1 1 : Approximately $52 8,000.00 in U.S. Currency; and
the 2003 Volvo XC90, previously identified in this notice, which
is traceable to property involved in money laundering violations
as alleged in Counts Nine and Eleven.
Counts 10,
12- 14: (1) Approximately $2,450,000.00 in U.S. Currency; and
(2) Approximately $2,300,000.00 in the Citi Smith Barney
account, previously identified in this notice, which is traceable to
property involved in money laundering violations as alleged in
Counts Ten and Twelve through Thirteen, with appreciated
value.
All defendants may be jointly and severally liable for all money judgments
imposed in this case.
SUBSTITUTE ASSETS
In the event that the property subject to forfeiture as a result of any act or
omission of the defendant:
a. cannot be located upon exercise of due diligence;
b. has been placed beyond the jurisdiction of the Cow;
c. has been tran-s ferred or sold to, or deposited with a third party;
d. has been substantially diminished in value; or
e. has been commingled with other property which cannot be divided
without difficulty;
it is the intent of the United States to seek forfeiture of any other property of the
defendant up to the value of such property pursuant to Title 2 1, United States
Code, Section 853(p), and Title 18, United States Code, Section 982(b)(l)
incorporating Title 21, United States Code, Section 853(p).
1
Original Signature on File
DONALD J. DeGABRIELLE, JR.
United States Attorney
Braddock
United States Attornev

1 comment:

dannoynted1 said...

Send this document to a colleague Close This Window












NUMBER 13-06-668-CV


COURT OF APPEALS


THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS


CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG



W.R. GRACE & CO.-CONN., Appellant,


v.


THOMAS C. HENSON, Appellee.



On appeal from the 148th District Court

of Nueces County, Texas.



MEMORANDUM OPINION


Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Rodriguez and Garza

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Rodriguez


This is an accelerated appeal of the trial court's denial of a request to issue a temporary injunction. See Tex. R. App. P. 28.1. By two issues, appellant, W.R. Grace & Co.-Conn. (WRG), complains that the trial court erred in failing to issue a temporary injunction to preclude appellee, Thomas C. Henson, from soliciting WRG's customers and from using or disclosing WRG's confidential information. We affirm.

I. Background

WRG manufactures and sells chemical additives (admixtures) used by cement and concrete manufacturers. Henson was hired by WRG in August 1979 and signed an employment agreement that contained a covenant not to compete and a non-disclosure provision. On October 16, 2006, Henson gave notice to WRG that he was resigning to accept employment with one of WRG's competitors, SIKA Corporation. On November 6, 2006, WRG filed a petition asserting claims for breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, and misappropriation against Henson. WRG also filed an application for a temporary restraining order and an application for a temporary injunction. WRG obtained an ex parte temporary restraining order the day suit was filed.

On November 28, 2006, the trial court held an evidentiary hearing on WRG's application for a temporary injunction. Henson and Scott Hausman, WRG's territory sales manager for western Iowa and Nebraska, and who became WRG's territory manager for Texas after Henson resigned, testified at the hearing. Henson testified that, after leaving WRG's employ, he did not use, copy, or share any of WRG's confidential information. The day after he resigned, he returned all WRG documents and materials in his possession to WRG. Hausman testified that after going through all the materials Henson returned upon leaving WRG, he was not aware of any WRG documents or information that Henson had not returned or any WRG documents or information that Henson had shared with anyone else. Henson testified that, in his current job, he had no use for any information he may have received while working for WRG. SIKA, his current employer, required him to sign an agreement that confirms that, in his new job, he will not use, possess, or even refer to confidential or proprietary information belonging to anyone else.

Henson testified that, as an employee of SIKA and before the temporary restraining order was entered, he contacted a number of WRG customers that he serviced when he was employed by WRG. Henson also testified that he had no contact with those companies after the temporary restraining order was issued; however, if not enjoined he intended to solicit business from all of the companies. Regarding disclosure of information received or obtained while working for WRG, Henson testified as follows:

Counsel: [F]rom the time that you left [WRG], to the time you started working with SIKA, to the present, have you at any time used or disclosed or revealed to anyone either at SIKA or any of the customers that you've contacted, any of the information, confidential, proprietary or otherwise, that you may have received or obtained while working for [WRG]?


Henson: I have not.


Counsel: And do you have any intention of doing so?


Henson: No, I do not.


Counsel: Do you need - in the way that you go about doing your business and contacting customers, do you need to disclose or reveal any information that you may have received while working for [WRG]?


Henson: I - I have absolutely no - no use for any of it.

Hausman specifically testified that he considered pricing information highly proprietary and that sales representatives such as Henson were required to periodically log onto WRG's "Seibol System," a computer system that produces a sales by customer by item report. Henson, however, testified that he no longer had access to "Seibol" and had retained no WRG pricing information (either on paper or in his head). Henson also testified that he "doesn't need" and "doesn't have" any of WRG's pricing information.

At the close of the hearing, the trial court issued an order denying WRG's application for temporary injunction. This interlocutory appeal ensued. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. 51.014(a)(4) (Vernon Supp. 2006).

II. Standard of Review and Applicable Law

The decision to deny a temporary injunction falls within the sound discretion of the trial court and will not be reversed absent a clear abuse of that discretion. Butnaru v. Ford Motor Co., 84 S.W.3d 198, 204 (Tex. 2002); Haq v. America's Favorite Chicken Co., 921 S.W.2d 728, 730 (Tex. App.-Corpus Christi 1996, writ dism'd w.o.j). "The reviewing court must not substitute its judgment for the trial court's judgment unless the trial court's action was so arbitrary that it exceeded the bounds of reasonable discretion." Butnaru, 84 S.W.3d at 204. "An abuse of discretion does not exist where the trial court bases its decisions on conflicting evidence." Haq, 921 S.W.2d at 731 (citing Davis v. Huey, 571 S.W.2d 859, 862 (Tex. 1978)).

A temporary injunction is an extraordinary remedy that will not issue without both pleading and proof of: (1) a cause of action; (2) a probable right to recover on that cause of action; and (3) a probable, imminent, and irreparable injury in the interim. Butnaru, 84 S.W.3d at 204. "An injury is irreparable if the injured party cannot be adequately compensated in damages or if the damages cannot be measured by any certain pecuniary standard." Id.; Haq, 921 S.W.2d at 730.

A covenant not to compete "will not be enforced by an injunction where the party seeking the injunction has failed to show that without injunctive relief he will suffer irreparable injury for which he has no adequate legal remedy." Reach Group, L.L.C. v. Angelina Group, 173 S.W.3d 834, 837-38 (Tex. App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2005, no pet.). "Generally, the purpose of injunctive relief is to halt wrongful acts that are threatened or in the course of accomplishment, rather than to grant relief against past actionable wrongs or to prevent commission of wrongs not imminently threatened." Tex. Health Care Info. Council v. Seton Health Plan, Inc., 94 S.W.3d 841, 853 (Tex. App.-Austin 2002, pet. denied). Although an injunction is a preventive device, injunctive relief is improper when the party seeking the injunction has mere fear or apprehension of the possibility of injury. Harbor Perfusion, Inc., v. Floyd, 45 S.W.3d 713, 716 (Tex. App.-Corpus Christi 2001, no pet.).

In this case, the trial court made no findings of fact or conclusions of law pertaining to the three elements of appellant's application for temporary injunction. (1)

Therefore, we will imply all necessary findings in support of the trial court's judgment, Casino Magic Corp. v. King, 43 S.W.3d 14, 19 (Tex. App.-Dallas 2001, pet. denied) (citing Holt Atherton Indus., Inc. v. Heine, 835 S.W.2d 80, 83 (Tex. 1992)), and review the record to determine if the order of the court must be upheld under any legal theory supported in the record. See Davis, 571 S.W.2d at 862.

Finally, at a temporary injunction hearing, "the ultimate merits of the case are not before the trial court." Reach Group, 173 S.W.3d at 837. Accordingly, in reviewing the denial of a temporary injunction based on a covenant not to compete, this Court "do[es] not reach the ultimate issue of whether the provisions in the agreements are enforceable under Texas law." Id. at 837 n.3 (citing Tom James of Dallas, Inc. v. Cobb, 109 S.W.3d 877, 884 (Tex. App.-Dallas 2003, no pet.)).

III. Analysis

On appeal, WRG contends that the trial court erred in failing to issue a temporary injunction to preclude Henson from soliciting WRG's customers and from using or disclosing WRG's confidential information because (1) the non-solicitation provision in the employment agreement was enforceable; and (2) WRG will suffer irreparable injury absent an injunction.

A. Irreparable Injury and Lack of Adequate Remedy at Law (2)

By its second issue, WRG asserts that, by inference, it appears that the trial court believed that there was sufficient evidence that WRG would suffer irreparable harm should a temporary injunction not issue. However, the trial court made no findings of fact or conclusions of law pertaining to this temporary injunction element. Therefore, we will imply all necessary findings in support of the trial court's judgment, and we will review the record to determine if the trial court's order can be upheld under any legal theory, including the failure of WRG to prove irreparable harm and the lack of an adequate remedy at law. See Davis, 571 S.W.2d at 862; see Casino Magic, 43 S.W.3d at 191.

WRG also generally contends that it will suffer irreparable injury absent an injunction. (3) However, WRG has presented no evidence of wrongful acts that are imminently threatened or in the course of accomplishment. WRG does not claim that it has lost any business. WRG did not prove that Henson used any confidential information to solicit business for his new employer. Instead, the evidence is to the contrary.

WRG's representative, Hausman, testified that he knew of no misuse of information by Henson. Hausman also did not identify any business or specific customer that WRG has lost or is in danger of losing. Although Henson has contacted customers of WRG, Henson testified that, in his current job, he had no use for any information he may have received while working for WRG, and he has not, at any time, used or disclosed or revealed any of the WRG information to any of the customers he contacted, and has no intent to do so in the future. Henson testified that he has not made a single sale to any former WRG customer and is aware of no loss to WRG resulting from his contacts on behalf of his new employer. Henson returned to WRG all of its information and materials. He also testified that he has not shared any WRG information with anyone at SIKA.

In addition, WRG provided no evidence regarding harm or injuries that may not be remedied through an award of monetary damages, or that are not readily susceptible of pecuniary measure. Butnaru, 84 S.W.3d at 204; Haq, 921 S.W.2d at 730. Thus, WRG failed to show that it had no adequate legal remedy for any harm allegedly suffered. See Haq, 921 S.W.2d at 731; see also Reach Group, 173 S.W.3d at 838 ("[A] party can rarely establish an irreparable injury and inadequate legal remedy when damages for breach of contract are available."). Because WRG did not carry this burden, even if there were harm to WRG, the trial court did not err in denying its application for a temporary injunction on this basis. See Reach Group, 173 S.W.3d at 838 (citing Cardinal Health Staffing Network, Inc. v. Bowen, 106 S.W.3d 230, 235, (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2003, no pet.).

WRG did not prove any irreparable injury, thus, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying WRG injunctive relief on this basis. See Haq, 921 S.W.2d at 731 (affirming the denial of temporary injunction in the absence of any showing of irreparable injury); Reach Group, 173 S.W.3d at 837-38 (same). We overrule WRG's second issue.

B. Enforceability of Non-Solicitation Provision

WRG contends by its first issue that the trial court's failure to enjoin Henson from soliciting certain WRG customers was predicated upon the determination that Henson's non-solicitation agreement was unenforceable as a matter of law. We need not address this issue because the order of the trial court must be upheld on the legal theory set out above. See Davis, 571 S.W.2d at 862; see also Tex. R. App. P. 47.1 (charging the courts of appeals to hand down a written opinion that is as brief as practicable but that addresses every issue raised and necessary to final disposition of the appeal).

Moreover, we decline to address the ultimate issue of the enforceability of the non-compete agreement at this time because the functions of a temporary injunction hearing and a trial on the merits are different. Tom James, 109 S.W.3d at 884; see Reach Group, 173 S.W.3d at 837 n.3 (setting out that upon review of the denial of a temporary injunction based on a covenant not to compete, this Court does not reach the ultimate issue of whether the provisions in the agreements are enforceable under Texas law). At a temporary injunction hearing, the trial court determines, among other things, whether WRG, in this case, had a probable right of success at final trial, and our review is limited to whether the trial court abused its discretion in refusing to grant temporary relief. Tom James, 109 S.W.3d at 884-85. The ultimate merits of the controversy, both legal and factual issues, were not before the trial court in this proceeding. See id. Therefore, although argued to the trial court and now on appeal, we do not, and will not, reach the ultimate issue of the enforceability of the non-compete agreement at issue in this case. "That issue awaits a final judgment on the merits, such as a final judgment entered after a jury or bench trial or a hearing on a motion for summary judgment." See id. at 885.

IV. Conclusion

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

NELDA V. RODRIGUEZ

Justice


Memorandum Opinion delivered and

filed this 23rd day of August, 2007.

1. Although the trial court's order includes a statement that could be interpreted as a finding of fact, such "finding" does not meet the requirements of Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 299a. Tex. R. Civ. P. 299a (requiring findings of fact to be separately filed and not simply recited in the judgment); Tom James of Dallas, Inc. v. Cobb, 109 S.W.3d 877, 884 (Tex. App.-Dallas 2003, no pet.); Casino Magic Corp. v. King, 43 S.W.3d 14, 19 n.6 (Tex. App.-Dallas 2001, pet. denied). Accordingly, we use the standard of review applicable to cases where no findings have been requested or filed. Casino Magic Corp., 43 S.W.3d at 20.

2. For the purposes of this opinion, we will refer to this argument as WRG's second issue.

3. Although irreparable harm may be presumed from the misuse of confidential information, there is no proof of that here, so the presumption is inapplicable under the facts of this case. See, e.g., Cardinal Health Staffing Network, Inc. v. Bowen, 106 S.W.3d 230, 234 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2003, no pet) (no presumption where evidence raised reasonable inference that disclosure and use were not probable); EMSL Analytical, Inc. v. Younker, 154 S.W.3d 693, 698 (Tex. App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2004, no pet.).

Google Yourself Corpus Christi Gene Seaman Carlos Valdez Rose Vela Rebecca Stutts Manuel Banales Carl Lewis Pete Alavarez, Jr. Solomon P. Ortiz Jr. Joe Gonzalez Randy Wright H.C. "Chuck" Cazalas Henry Garrett Betty Jean Longoria Mary Kay Fischer George Hodge Armando Chapa Angel Escobar Mark Scott Bill Kelly Jesse Noyola Brent Chesney Diana Barrera Jerry Garcia Georgia Neblett Ramiro Canales Rex Kinnison Ruben Bonilla George "Skip" Noe Herbert Canales Terry Carter John Hornsby Marty Johnson, Ph.D. Danny Adams Daniel Garza Oscar Martinez · Kelly, Bill · Kemp, Jack · Kendrick, Diana Cumming · Kenedeno, Jaime · Kenedy Foundation · Kenedy, Mifflin · Kennedy, Joseph · King, Richard · Kinnison, Rex · Kissinger, Henry A. · Lake, Clear · Lasker, Edward · Lasker, Mary Woodard · Lauderdale, Fort · Laurence, William L. · Law, Chicago · Law, Texas · Le Breton Douglas, Philip · Lee, Ella · Levitz, Gary · Lewis, Carl · Libby, Scooter · London, Royal · Longoria, Betty Jean · Longstreet, John · Los Kenedenos · Louisiana, Minden · Luce, Claire Boothe · Luce, Henry · Luskin, Robert · MAI · Mallon, Neil · Management Development · Manhattan Project · Manor, Houston Gulf · Marcello, Carlos · Marina, Harbor · Martin, Lockheed · Martinez, Oscar · Matlan, Molly · Matthews, Chris · Mauze, Jean · McCain, John · McClellan, Scott · McCloy, Trustee John J. · McCullough, Andrew Dossett · McGinty, Jerry · McMoRan, Freeport · Mecom, John · Merchantile Bank · Mercury, San Jose · Mexico, Texas · Meyers, Fort · Miller, Zell · Minor, Linda · Mischer, Walter · Missionaries, Presbyterian · Modesett, Jack · Mogenis, Bonislaw · Mogenis, Bronislaw · Morris, Philip · Muehlenbeck, Tom · Munson, Betty Bingham · National Board · National Guard · National Office · Neblett, Georgia · NED · Noonan, Peggy · North, Oliver · Noyola, Jesse · Office, Examiners · Ortiz Jr, Solomon P. · P, Joseph · Parks, Texas · Pataki, George · Perelman, Ron · Phelps Dodge Corp · Pier, Seafood · Pittston Corp · Plaza, Greenway · Plaza, Park · Presbyterian, Austin · Presbyterian, Houston · Press Corp · Putnam Investment Management Co · Putnam, George · Putnam, Howard · Qaeda, Al · Raimer, Ben G. · Rainwater, Richard · Ranger, Texas · Rangers, Kings · Rangers, Texas · Rd, Oak · Rd, Todville · Redstone, Sumner · Republican National · Rice, Condalezza · Rich, Mark · Riggs National · Rocha, Roger C Jr · Rockefeller, Abbey · Rosenberg, Chuck · Rosenthal, Chuck · Rosenthall, Chuck · Rove, Carl · Rove, Karl · Royal, British · Royal, Saudi · Rt, Jerry McGinty · Russert, Tim · Russo, Joe · S, Lincoln · Sage, Purple · Salk Institute · Sans-Serif · Schexnailder, Paul · Schultz, George · Scott, Mark · Seafood, Jimmy Walker · Seal, Barry · Seaman, Christi Gene · Sec, River Oaks · Secord, Richard · Sessions, William · Severance, Kevin · Shapiro, Florence · Shapiro, Robert · Shek, Chaing Kai · Shriver, Sargeant · Shriver, Sargent · Sibley, David · Silverman, Jeffrey · Silverman, Seth · Sivley, William · Sommers, Sheldon · Spohn, Christus · St. Louis · St., Church · Stanford University · Stettinius, Edward · Stitt, David · Stittinius, Edward Sr · Stone, Patrick Scott · Stringer, David · Stutts, Rebecca · Sulfur, Freeport · Taft, William Howard · Taus, Richard · Technologies, Tetra · Tetra Technologies Inc · Texas Air National Guard · Texas Education · Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board · Texas, Dallas · Texas-Mexico · Tobin, Husband · Tony, Dear · Train, Mena · Treece, Gerald · Triad, Chinese · Trump, Donald · Tweeton, Thomas · University-Kingsville · Untermeyer, Chase · Valdez, Carlos · Valenti, Jack · Vasella, Daniel · Vela, Rose · Walker, George Herbert III · Walker, Jimmy · Walker, John M Jr · Walton, Andy · Washington University · Watchdog, Christi · Watkins, Mary Louise · Webb, Gary · Wells, Jim · Wharton, J. Taylor · Wharton, Taylor · Whartons, Presbyterian · White, Bush · Whitehouse, Bush · Whittington, Bill · Whittington, Don · Whittington, Harry · Wight, Charles A. · Wilkes, Brent · Willeford, George · Wilson, C. Ivan · Wood, Cheryl · World Trade Center · Wright, Randy · Wyatt, Oscar · Wyoming, Sheridan · Zarr, Nicolle Domercq