HOUSTON, June 22, 2012 /PRNewswire via COMTEX/ -- A new lawsuit alleges University General, one of the nation's fastest growing hospital companies, defrauded its joint-venture partners in an Alvin, Texas regional hospital project, The Buzbee Law Firm announced today.
The lawsuit was filed on behalf of ACHDC, LLC and Palicio Gate, LP in state district court in Wharton County, Texas against defendants University General Hospital LP, University Hospital Systems, LLP, UGHS Alvin Hospital, Inc., and Skymark Development Company.
According to the petition, University General agreed in 2011 to develop a hospital on a 93-acre site in Alvin, outside of Houston, with ACHDC, LLC and Palicio Gate, LP. The agreement announcement was widely covered in Houston-area news reports in October 2011.
The lawsuit alleges University General, a publicly traded company, and the other defendants then began secret negotiations to develop a hospital on nearby land in Alvin and abruptly terminated its project agreements with ACHDC, LLC and Palicio Gate, LP in May 2012.
Attorneys Tony Buzbee and Chris Leavitt of The Buzbee Law Firm in Houston represent ACHDC, LLC and Palicio Gate, LP.
The lawsuit alleges, "After signing the lease, University General represented to potential new investors, and current investors, that it intended to build a hospital in Alvin, with the Plaintiffs. This representation to investors allowed University General to raise millions of dollars during its public offering. Unbeknownst to Plaintiffs, however, University General was also secretly negotiating with Skymark Development Company, another large Alvin landowner."
Buzbee said, "We allege University General unlawfully took our clients' proprietary strategies, contacts, market research, and hospital forecasts and negotiated a secret deal with Skymark for a hospital literally across the street from our clients' project in Alvin."
The lawsuit seeks $100 million in damages, attorneys' fees, interest, and court costs. The allegations include fraud, civil conspiracy, breach of contract, tortious interference with prospective business relations, and tortious interference with existing contract.
Late Thursday, the court issued a temporary restraining order against the defendants.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Thanks for your comments - this is your blog - but please keep it clean for the kiddos!