The TX COA has set a submission date of 10/08/2019 for the last remaining appeal. No oral arguments are scheduled so the submission will be on the briefs. Although there is no time limit within which the COA must render a decision, the average time between submission and decision is 2.5 months,. At issue is whether the Texas Citizens Participation Act was a frivolous argument as to why CRG should not be granted an Anti-Suit Injunction to halt the OH litigation. If the COA agrees with the Tx trial judge that it was frivolous then CRG will get attorney fees, which they claim, but have not proven, are $62,632.50. A rather insignificant sum compared to what CRG has already cost the company. Note that the Anti-Suit Injunction was denied on other grounds and the OH action is proceeding. The outcome of this appeal will not effect the OH action nor the prior TX decision regarding the swept funds. This case can be followed here - link to TCPA appeal
One more note before moving on from Texas: As I reported, the COA dismissed NAVB's appeal regarding the swept funds and NAVB did not file a petition for review by the 08/30/2019 deadline. The next step is that the COA will issue a Mandate on 09/24/2019 which is when the TX case is closed and a notice is sent to the trial court. The issuance of the mandate might be an occasion for a press release or comments from a reporter but it won't be "news" to readers of this board. It's conceivable that the OH judge is waiting for the mandate to issue before taking his next action.
And now for a civics lesson tying this in to P-M lawsuit which was just argued before the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals. IMHO NAVB got bad rulings from the TX court when the trial judge used his discretion on several issues that could have gone either way. On the other hand CRG could make the same complaint about rulings in OH. One of the issues we heard raised in the Fed Cir Ct was whether there was a satisfactory showing of complete diversity of citizenship between the parties, which is required for the Federal court to have jurisdiction after the lawsuit was initially filed by P-M in NY State court. Our founding fathers believed that a state court might show favoritism to a party that was a citizen of it's state, so Article III of the Constitution provides for federal jurisdiction to "Controversies...between Citizens of different States...".
For those who listened to the oral arguments, you heard the P-M attorneys say something like the standing defense came late in the litigation proceedings. I don't believe that was correct, this has been a defense since NAVB was first sued by P-M. Another thing I didn't like was the discussion about the competing claim for these same funds by "Navidea's former CEO". Yes, it is true that MG is the former CEO and was the CEO at the time he made a claim to these funds, but the claim is not in any way compensation to MG for his role(s) at NAVB but rather is solely based as compensation owed to him by P-M for his work with P-M. MG claims that the balance of this loan was assigned to him by P-M as part of his severance package with them. That distinction was lost by the court. NAVB did not help it's case when it had to admit to the court that it has not seen a note issued to MG (although there is "other documentation"). NAVB did not inform the court that it is challenging MG's claim to these funds in it's federal action against MG, nor did it need to since MG's claims that this money is owed to him and not to P-M was not used by the district court in it's decision to find that NAVB owed P-M no money under the note.
Update regarding NAVB's federal lawsut against MG: the Status Report letter due the beginning of each month was filed, and for those interested here it is: Sept 03 2019 status letter