Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.
Case Style: Parsons & Whittemore Enterprises Corporation v. Cello Energy, LLC, et al
Case Number: 1:07-cv-00743-CG-B
Judge: Callie V. S. Granade
Court: United States District Court for the Southern District of Alabama, Mobile County
Plaintiff's Attorney: Joseph McCorkle, John Eric Getty, David Boyd and Louis Michael Calligas, Balch & Bingham, Montgomery, Alabama
John Leach, Helmsing, Leach, Herlong, Newman & Rouse, P.C., Mobile, Alabama
Defendant's Attorney: Julian Brackin, Btrackin, McGriff & Johnson, Foley, Alabama and S. Greg Burge, Birmingham, Alabama for Cello Energy LLC, Boykin Trust LLC, Jack Boykin and Allen Boykin
Richard Johnston, David W. Bowker and David Burkoff, Richard Johnston, Russell Myles and Anne Laurie Smith., Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP, New York, New York; Forrest Latta and Michael David Strasavich, Burr & Forman, LLP, Mobile, Alabama; William Roedder and Anne Laurie Smith, McDowell Knight Roedder & Sledge, L.L.C., Mobile, Alabama; Philip D. Segrest, Husch Blackwell Sanders Welsh & Katz, Chicago, Illinois; and Philip Dale Segrest, Sr., Tallassee, Alabama for BioFuels Operating Company LLC, Khosla Ventures LLC, Red Sky LP and Khosla Ventures II LP
Russel Myles, McDowell Knight Roedder & Sledge, L.L.C., Mobile, Alabama for Khosla Ventures Company, et al.
Description: Parsons & Whittemore Enterprises Corporation sued Cello Energy; LLC, Biofuels Operating Co.; LLC, Boykin Trust, LLC; Allen Boykin; Jack W. Boykin on a fraud theory claiming that defendants falsely claimed that they could produce cheap fuel from hay, waste wood and other materials. Plaintiff claimed that Cello Energy built and staffed a plant, but never accomplished what Boykin had long promised—deriving motor fuel from wood chips, crop residue and other biomass.
The defenses asserted by Defendants are not available.
Outcome: Plaintiff's verdict for $104,537 in compensatory damage for fraud and $7.5 million in punitive damages against all the defendants. The jury returned a verdict in favor of the Khosla Ventures Defendants on the only claim against the Khosla Ventures Defendants that was before them -- for tortious interference with business relations. The jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff, and awarded damages, on the claims against the Boykin defendants (not the Khosla Ventures Defendants).