Travis & Inman, a Professional Corporation, is dedicated to providing its clients results-oriented, business legal services. What does this mean? Although we cannot guarantee results, in most of our matters we obtain results favorable to our clients.
At Travis & Inman, our lawyers are familiar with the process of mediation and arbitration (also known as Alternate Dispute Resolution or “ADR”). Our lawyers have extensive experience with court-ordered mediation and arbitration provided through private tribunals, such as the American Arbitration Association (AAA) and the Judicial Arbitration and Mediation Services (JAMS). They also have extensive experience with FINRA arbitrations.
Based on the client’s established business and economic objectives, our lawyers employ a number of methods aimed at maximizing the opportunity for early and cost-effective dispute resolution, including the use of appropriate mediation papers, focus groups, and proven negotiating strategies.
At Travis & Inman our attorneys have experience in a variety of appellate law practice areas. In addition to handling appeals in which our firm participated at the trial court level or before an administrative agency, we also handle appeals of cases tried by attorneys outside the firm. If possible, we involve the trial attorney in the appellate process to save time and money in the preparation of the appellate record and the briefs, and in formulating the strategies for oral argument.
Our attorneys are licensed to practice in all Texas state appeals courts and many federal appeals courts, including the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, which governs appeals from Texas federal courts. In addition to the Fifth Circuit, our lawyers have handled appeals before the Third Circuit, Seventh Circuit, Ninth Circuit, Tenth Circuit, and Federal Circuit Courts of Appeals. Additionally, Mr. Travis has handled appeals before the Texas Supreme Court and Mr. Calhoun has handled appeals before the Texas Supreme Court and the Supreme Court of the United States.
Some of the appeals we have handled:
Ancor Holdings, LP v. Landon Capital Partners, LLC, ICON EV, LLC, and NexGen Lithium Batteries, LLC, 114 F. 4th 382 (5th Cir. 2024)
Door Control Services, Inc. v. Besam Automated Entrance Services, Inc., 61 Fed. Appx. 121 (5th Cir. 2003), 2003 WL 342351
Mikail et al. v. Martiz, et al., 189 F.3d 468 (5th Cir. 1999)
Lusk v. FoxMeyer Health Corp., 129 F.3rd 773 (5th Cir. 1997)
Armstrong v. C.I.R., 15 F.3d 970 (10th Cir.)
Healthy Home 365 v. Premium Home Efficiency, et. al., 2025 WL 992700 (Tex. App.—Dallas, April 2, 2025).
Allen-Pieroni v. Pieroni, 535 S.W.3d 887 (Tex. 2017)
Graham Mortgage Corp. v. Hall, 307 S.W.3d 472 (Tex. App.—Dallas, Feb. 11, 2010, no pet.)
Flagship Hotel, Ltd. v. City of Galveston, 117 S.W.3d 552 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2003, pet denied)
Attorneys for the firm successfully defended the American Gem Trade Association in an action in the United States District Court, Northern District of California from claims that it engaged in an illegal boycott in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act by denying membership to certain entities. The firm settled (on terms favorable to its clients) claims brought in the Supreme Court of Maricopa County, Arizona against a national home medical equipment company for anti-competitive conduct in the lucrative Arizona markets. The firm also successfully defended orthodontists in the North Texas market from claims brought in the United States District Court, Eastern District of Texas that they engaged in an illegal boycott by prohibiting the advertisement of competitors’ prices for professional services. The firm is frequently called upon to assert and defend claims arising under the Sherman Act, the Clayton Act, the Robinson-Patman Act and state antitrust statutes in the franchising context.
The firm has also represented parties to Mergers and acquisitions that require Hart Scott Rodino filings for approval by the U.S. Dept. of Justice.
Travis & Inman has represented several banks and financial institutions in various litigation matters. In addition to recovering tens of millions of dollars in suits on promissory notes, guarantees, and other debt instruments, the firm has recovered amounts due under participation agreements among financial institutions. It has also successfully brought and defended lender liability claims in numerous cases. The firm has also been involved in payment system disputes for forged checks, unauthorized withdrawals, and other issues involving Article 3 and 4 of the Uniform Commercial Code. The firm has successfully recovered millions of dollars due under factoring and receivables financing agreements.
The firm has represented bank holding companies and other ownership groups in the acquisitions and sales of financial institutions and the related change of control applications.
Class action lawsuits are unique and difficult cases. They involve complicated issues of class representation, commonality of claims, and notice to class members. Travis & Inman has successfully defended its clients against class action certification and has successfully guided its clients through the class action settlement process when it was more economically feasible to settle. See, e.g.,Windows Plus, Inc., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. Door Controls Services, Inc., Cause No. 1:13-cv-7072 in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, and Texoma Vision, Inc., et al v. Pearle Vision, Inc., Cause No. 93-1527 in the 15th Judicial District Court of Grayson County, Texas.
Travis & Inman has extensive experience in representing commercial construction businesses. The firm advises large commercial construction clients on all aspects of their respective businesses, including corporate matters, the drafting and negotiating commercial construction contracts and subcontract agreements, and the handling of lien, bond, and payment issues.
Travis & Inman also has extensive experience in both commercial and residential construction litigation. The firm has represented developers, contractors, and insurance companies in a variety of construction cases ranging from construction defects to general contract disputes. The firm obtained summary judgment for a design engineer in a case involving construction defects in a large residential development project in Collin County, Texas. The firm has also recently represented a subcontractor in defense of claims made for delay damages associated with alleged construction defects at a large commercial property in Denver, Colorado. The firm’s attorneys also recently obtained a six-figure settlement for a real estate developer that was defrauded by the seller of the land and the engineers that prepared inaccurate property descriptions. The firm has handled a significant amount of construction collection matters for a wide range of clients.
The lawyers at Travis & Inman have handled cases involving contract disputes in almost every area of law and every type of transaction. They have handled cases involving claims for breach of contract in merchant transactions, real estate transactions, construction transactions, insurance transactions, lending and financial transactions, employment matters, and even pension fund cases. This representation includes disputes arising under asset purchase agreements for breaches of representations and warranties and contractual indemnification provisions. It also includes breaches of stock purchase agreements, partnership agreements, shareholder agreements, buy/sell agreements, operating agreements, management contracts, licensing agreements, and franchising and distribution agreements, to name but a few.
Whenever there is a contract between two parties, there is a chance of a dispute if either party feels that the contract was not honored. When that happens, we often find ourselves in a race to the courthouse as each side claims that the other side has violated the terms of the contract. Our attorneys have represented both plaintiffs and defendants in breach of contract litigation. The disputes involve breaches of both oral and written agreements, as well as claims where there was no formal agreement but services were provided and not paid for. In breach of contract disputes, as well as in all litigation matters, the attorneys of Travis & Inman offer strategies designed to resolve the issues promptly and in a cost-effective manner.
Travis & Inman has extensive experience in litigation where corporate control, piercing the corporate veil, and successor liability issues play prominently. The firm has also represented numerous clients in cases involving allegations of breach of fiduciary duties, usurpation of corporate opportunities, and conversion or misappropriation of corporate assets by officers and directors.
In one case, the firm persuaded the United States Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals to uphold a district court decision refusing to pierce the corporate veil of a publicly traded company in a class action suit brought by the employees of its subsidiaries. Lusk v. FoxMeyer Health Corp., 129 F.3d 773 (5th Cir. 1997). This case became a landmark decision on the subjects of federal civil procedure and vicarious liability of a public company for the acts of its subsidiaries.
The firm regularly prosecutes and defends derivative actions for and against entities. The firm has also brought claims against a stock transfer agent of a public company for failure to perform its statutory duties and obtained an order requiring the transfer agent to recognize the disposition of stock urged by its clients.
Often, at the conclusion of litigation against a corporation where individual officers or directors were named as defendants, the question arises as to who should pay for portions of the defense of the lawsuit. The firm has been successful in recovering the fees and expenses incurred in connection with the defense of the officers and directors from insurance carriers. The firm has also successfully defended corporations against claims brought by officers and directors attempting to recover the costs they incurred in litigation.
Travis & Inman regularly drafts and advises companies and individuals regarding non-competition, non-solicitation and non-disclosure agreements. The firm has represented both entities enforcing covenants-not-to-compete and employees trying to escape the confines of such covenants. Included among these clients have been stock brokers, commercial insurance brokers, heavy construction equipment distributors, drilling equipment manufacturers, high-tech companies, telecommunications companies, healthcare companies, manufacturing companies, staffing companies, franchisors and franchisees, and consultants in various disciplines.
The firm has also represented companies and individuals in the negotiations for and execution of executive employment agreements, phantom equity agreements, profits interest agreements and deferred compensation agreements.
Travis & Inman has experience representing national franchise companies in their disputes with their franchisees. In addition to recovering monies from defaulting franchisees under the franchise agreements and related financial arrangements, the firm has successfully defended claims brought by franchisees for alleged fraud in the sale of the franchise. Attorneys at the firm have also represented individual officers and directors in claims brought by franchisees under certain state statutes for alleged fraud or deception in the sale of the franchise. The firm has represented franchisees against franchisors’ attempts to materially alter the franchise agreements or relationships.
Travis & Inman brought an action against a manufacturer of automatic doors for the wrongful termination of its largest distributor. At the conclusion of the trial in the United States District Court in the Eastern District of Texas, the jury returned a verdict for $6,400,000 in favor of the firm’s client, the distributor. The case was taken up on appeal to the United States 5th Circuit Court of Appeals and was later settled on a confidential but favorable basis for the firm’s client.
Travis & Inman has also drafted franchise agreements and disclosure documents in the healthcare sector, the high tech sector, the restaurant industry and other business sectors.
Fraud exists when there has been a “misrepresentation or concealment with reference to some fact material to a transaction that is made with knowledge of its falsity or in reckless disregard of its truth or falsity and with the intent to deceive another.” Attorneys for Travis & Inman have represented numerous clients in a wide variety of civil fraud cases.
In one case, a developer bought property after he was told that the design of a certain project had been approved by the city/municipality. It had not been approved, nor would it have been, because a portion of the property was in a flood plain. Attorneys for Travis & Inman obtained a substantial settlement for our client (the developer) in this case.
In another case, a distributor spent large sums of money to expand into additional territories based upon the representations by the manufacturer that those territories would be the distributor’s territories. After the distributor stretched its finances to achieve the growth required by the expansion, the manufacturer terminated the distributor, took over the territories for itself and attempted to take over the distributor itself by hiring its employees and doing business for the distributor’s clients. Attorneys in Travis & Inman obtained a large jury verdict on behalf of the distributor for fraud.
Our attorneys represented the former owner of a breast implant company who was owed over $30,000,000 from the purchaser but to whom the purchaser refused to pay because of a claim of fraud in the sale of the company. After 14 months of litigation, attorneys in Travis & Inman prevailed on behalf of our client with a very large settlement.
Recently, Travis & Inman won a jury verdict in a case involving fraud in the sale of a jet airplane.
Our attorneys have represented the plaintiffs and the defendants in numerous commercial fraud cases. The forgoing examples are but a few.
The attorneys of Travis & Inman have extensive experience in various aspects of the healthcare industry. The firm has represented medical staffing, home healthcare and home medical equipment companies for decades in all of their endeavors. The firm also represents an entity that provides management services and receivable financing for healthcare companies. Attorneys at the firm have represented clients in fraud and abuse investigations and compliance matters.
The firm has represented practice management groups in the medical and dental fields, and currently represents individual doctors and dentists in matters relating to their practice. And the firm has represented a medical testing lab in its contractual and litigation matters.
In the course of handling matters for these clients, the lawyers of the firm work with the Medicare regulations, corporate practice of medicine issues, and various other matters which concern the healthcare industry.
Travis & Inman has experienced great success in the representation of its hotel and hospitality clients. In 2003, the firm won an appeal involving a hotel’s lease on a pier in Galveston, Texas. The trial court had ruled that the hotel’s lease on the pier had expired and awarded the City of Galveston its costs and attorneys’ fees. (Travis & Inman did not represent the hotel in the trial court.) On appeal, Travis & Inman obtained a reversal of this decision, extending the lease for another 30 years, and reversing the award of attorneys’ fees for the hotel. Flagship Hotel, Ltd. v. City of Galveston, 117 S.W.3d 552 (Tex. App.-Texarkana 2003, pet. denied). The firm was also able to convince the Texas Supreme Court to let the decision of the court of appeals stand.
In another matter, the firm obtained a summary judgment for the owners of a world class luxury hotel in a lawsuit brought by developers on an alleged oral representation regarding the development of adjacent property. The lawsuit was pending in front of the United States District Court, Western District of Texas where the firm obtained a summary judgment dismissing all claims against its clients. The developers appealed the adverse judgment, and the firm was able to convince the United States Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals to sustain the summary judgment on appeal. Mikail et al. v. Martiz, et al., 189 F.3d 468 (5th Cir. 1999)
In another matter, the firm assisted a Caribbean resort in recovering over $10,000,000 on insurance policies placed on the Lloyd’s exchange for business interruption resulting from a hurricane.
The firm represents hotels in every aspect of business, from contracts with vendors to contracts with owners and/or management companies to suits brought by or against guests.
The firm has represented numerous clients in insurance-related matters. This representation includes disputes arising under commercial insurance brokerage agreements, agency agreements, first and third-party insurance contracts and corporate-owned insurance policies. These disputes have ranged from payments due to agents and subagents on policies under agency agreements to coverage disputes and bad faith insurance practices.
The firm has recovered environmental clean-up costs on general liability policies for a large manufacturer.
The firm has recovered over $10,000,000 in lost profits under an unwritten insurance policy for a Caribbean resort after it sustained damage from a hurricane.
Commercial liability coverage is a frequent area for bad faith insurance disputes. The litigation we’ve handled (for the plaintiff and defense) typically involves disagreements about the facts of the claim and the interpretation of insurance policy provisions.
The firm is also experienced at invoking coverage on policies for its clients after insurance companies have denied coverage. In one recent case, the firm was able to convince the insurance company to cover defense costs, even in excess of the policy limits.
Travis & Inman has been involved in disputes over the use and ownership of databases, software programming, trademarks, trade names and trade dress. In these cases, the firm has confronted issues relating to the work-for-hire doctrine under federal statutes and state common law and issues arising under the Lanham Act and state statutes protecting trademarks. They have prosecuted a number of actions against competitors for copyright, trademark and trade dress infringement, misappropriation of trade secrets, and false advertising. The firm has also represented high-tech clients in protecting and licensing proprietary information, including technology that was patented, trademarked, copyrighted, or otherwise protected as a trade secret.
The firm advises clients regarding trademark and copyright registration and protection and the protection of trade secrets. Although Travis & Inman does not hold itself out as a patent firm, it has corresponding relationships with AV rated patent firms.
In the last several years, the firm has represented sellers and purchasers in over 20 transactions involving sales and purchases of ownership and/or assets totaling over $900,000,000.
Some of our most notable transactions in recent years:
In these recent transactions, the sellers often rolled equity forward, but in some instances they were straight sales. Some of these transactions involved strategic buyers; some involved private equity groups.
The firm has advised its clients on numerous other transactions over the years. Indeed, Jeff Travis has worked on mergers and acquisitions going all the way back to the mid-1980s.
In addition to the foregoing transactional experience, the firm has litigated numerous mergers and acquisitions that have gone bad. This firm has handled a $5,000,000 payout dispute arising out of an acquisition of a healthcare company. The firm handled a $30,000,000 lawsuit for amounts due on a payout from the sale of a breast implant company. The firm handled a multi-million dollar payout dispute for an oil field services company. And the firm recently handled a lawsuit involving a private equity firm that was cut out of a $50,000,000 transaction to acquire an electric golf car company. Indeed, it is the litigation experience of the firm in the area of mergers & acquisitions that has made it uniquely qualified to do the transactional work. We know what is important and what is not when negotiating and drafting documents for mergers and acquisitions.
The firm has been involved in all aspects of real estate litigation. The firm has successfully represented developers, property owners, lenders and management companies in real estate related disputes. The firm has successfully represented partners in general and limited partnerships for claims involving distributions upon sale, allocations of costs, duties of the general partner and other matters.
The firm confirmed on appeal the propriety of a temporary injunction obtained to stop the foreclosure of $9,500,000 worth of undeveloped property in Parker, Texas. Graham Mortgage Corp. v. Hall, 307 S.W.3d 472 (Tex. App.—Dallas, Feb. 11, 2010, no pet.)
In another case, the firm obtained summary judgment in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas for a hotel investment group, defeating a $30 million claim for fraud in connection with a real estate transaction for the development of property in downtown Austin, Texas.
In another case, the firm obtained summary judgment in Tarrant County for a landlord/owner of a commercial property, defeating an action to foreclose on a mechanics and materialman’s lien on the property. In addition to the summary judgement, the firm also obtained an award of attorneys’ fees and costs for its client.
Attorneys for the firm have had extensive experience in litigation involving real estate brokers’ fees. Attorneys for the firm have successfully prosecuted a claim for breach of a commercial real estate listing agreement. They have brought claims against a commercial real estate broker for breach of fiduciary duties owed to the owner and property manager in connection with a commercial leasing transaction. They have also brought claims for his clients against another party’s broker for fraudulent acts in the sale of development property.
The firm’s experience in real estate litigation overlaps substantially with its experience in banking litigation. The firm has represented lending institutions in real estate loan workouts, judicial foreclosures, non-judicial foreclosures and subsequent deficiency actions against obligors and guarantors. The firm also has experience in obtaining restraining orders to stop foreclosures and has successfully defended the claims by lenders in connection with real estate financing transactions.
Travis & Inman has extensive experience in securities litigation and arbitration. Jeff Travis has recovered over $10,000,000 on behalf of investors in ten separate arbitration proceedings against Wall Street brokerage firms for unauthorized and unsuitable trading. He has obtained a judgment for investors under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act for failure to disclose material facts in connection with a private placement offering, and have represented a former officer of a company in his action to recover amounts due under a company stock repurchase agreement.
Lawyers from the firm have also represented brokerage firms and financial institutions in litigation against the investors. Lawyers from the firm have represented broker/dealers in disciplinary proceedings before the NASD Business Conduct Committee, and have successfully represented officers of a national brokerage firm in connection with an SEC investigation.
Many of the securities fraud lawsuits in which our lawyers will become involved are class action lawsuits in which we represent the plaintiffs. They also involve individual or single investors that hold stock or stock options. In matters related to securities fraud or shareholder derivative lawsuits, our litigation attorneys will offer legal advice and strategies designed to resolve the legal issues promptly and in a cost-effective manner.
Trade secret information is information that is not generally known in the marketplace which gives a business a competitive advantage. Trade secret information is a protected class of information under the law, so long as the company has taken steps to protect this information. Trade Secret information can be something as complex as the source code to the latest and greatest software or an ingredient in a product and something as common as client lists and client information. Travis & Inman has vast experience handling cases involving the protection of trade secret information. Trade secret issues come up regularly in discovery when two competitors are suing each other. These issues also come up very often in the employment/covenant not to compete context. Travis & Inman has had great success protecting its client’s trade secret information from disclosure and has had great success obtaining information from its opponents in the face of claims of trade secret protection.