Anthony N. Kaim


Rosa Brennan


Anthony Kaim represents both plaintiffs and defendants in complex commercial disputes.  He has experience trying cases to juries in both federal and state courts and to arbitration panels.

Prior to law school, Anthony worked as an associate with Deloitte & Touche, LLP in their Valuation Services group.  Following law school, Anthony was a law clerk to Judge Patrick E. Higginbotham, United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, from 2008 to 2009.

Representative Matters

Harris County, Texas, et al. v. International Paper Company, et al.
Represented Waste Management, Inc. and Waste Management of Texas, Inc. in a case brought by Harris County, Texas alleging over 40 years of discharges into the San Jacinto River from a dump site containing paper mill waste that was abandoned in the late 1960’s.  Harris County sought daily penalties of over $3 billion from Waste Management and McGinnes Industrial Maintenance Corporation (a/k/a “MIMC”), the company that performed the disposal operations in the 1960s, and which many years later became a wholly owned subsidiary of Waste Management of Texas, Inc.   Shortly before trial, the court granted a summary judgment dismissal of all claims against Waste Management, Inc.  After the close of the evidence at trial, the court granted a directed verdict holding that the waste site constituted one facility for statutory purposes, meaning that Harris County could not multiply the penalties by three.  On the morning closing arguments were scheduled, Harris County agreed to settle with Waste Management of Texas and MIMC for $29.2 million.

Blue Sky Golden FPS, Ltd. v. Fulcrum Energy, LLC et al.
Represented Golden Agri-Resources Ltd. in Texas state court against counterclaims asserted in an underlying lawsuit involving one of our client’s subsidiaries.  The counterclaims sought hundreds of millions of dollars in damages based primarily on allegations that Golden Agri-Resources breached an oral contract and/or an oral partnership as well as fiduciary duties relating to a proposed joint venture to develop biofuels.  Discovery was concluded in the case, and it then settled on extremely favorable terms for our client as well as our client’s subsidiary.

Futch v. Baker Botts
Represented Baker Botts against a malpractice claim brought by a former client that alleged Baker Botts provided the U.S. government, pursuant to an investigation, information that resulted in the client later pleading guilty to criminal charges.   The client alleged breach of fiduciary duty, breach of contract, and equitable fee forfeiture claims against Baker Botts.  We obtained summary judgment on all claims at the trial court by arguing that the former client was impermissibly fracturing his claims, that his claims were barred because a felon cannot sue his attorneys for damages stemming from his conviction, and that no forfeiture claim exists where a party did not pay its own fees.  We continued to represent Baker Botts on appeal and the Fourteenth Court of Appeals affirmed summary judgment on all claims.

Plains Gas Solutions, LLC v. Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company, LLC, et al.
Representing Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company, a subsidiary of Kinder Morgan, in a lawsuit filed by Plains against TGP and other defendants relating to a gas processing contract entered into by Plains and TGP in 2006 and the subsequent divesture of certain offshore pipeline assets by TGP to a third company, Kinetica.  Plains alleges that Kinetica is operating those pipelines in violation of the gas processing contract and seeks over $100 million in damages.

Unocal Pipeline Company v. BP Pipelines (Alaska) Inc. et al.
Representing Chevron Corporation affiliate in litigation in Houston district court against affiliates of BP p.l.c., ConocoPhillips Company, and Exxon Mobil Corporation relating to Chevron affiliate’s withdrawal from the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System.  The litigation is ongoing.

ERG Resources, LLC v. Nabors Global Holdings II, Limited, et al.
We represented ERG Resources, Inc. in litigation against Nabors Global Holdings II, Ltd. and Parex Resources, Inc. involving the acquisition of oil and gas properties in the Republic of Colombia.  In early 2012, ERG agreed to purchase the stock of Ramshorn International from Nabors for $45 million, which would give ERG ownership of Ramshorn’s valuable Colombian oil and gas interests.  During the due diligence period, ERG identified certain alleged breaches of Nabors’ representations and warranties under the purchase agreement.  At the same time, Parex offered Nabors a substantially higher price for the same assets.  ERG alleged that Parex had knowledge of the purchase agreement and that Nabors sought to thwart the deal in order to sell the assets to Parex instead of ERG.  Nabors subsequently sold the assets to Parex for $75 million.  ERG filed suit against Nabors and Ramshorn seeking specific performance and, in the alternative, damages for breach of contract.  ERG also asserted claims against Parex and its subsidiary for tortious interference with ERG’s contract.  After a two-day special appearance hearing, the trial court denied Parex’s and Ramshorn’s special appearances, but granted the special appearance of the Parex subsidiary.  The jurisdictional rulings were appealed to the Texas Supreme Court, which determined that personal jurisdiction existed over Ramshorn but not over Parex or its subsidiary.  As a result, ERG was required to pursue parallel litigation against Parex in Alberta, Canada.  In 2017, ERG’s claims against all parties were resolved prior to trial in a series of settlements totaling $35 million.

Scott Martin, et al v. Martin Resource Management Corp., et al.
Represented Keeneland Capital Management, LLC (“KCM”) in a shareholder derivative and individual suit involving its investment in Martin Resources Management Corporation (“MRMC”), a closely-held energy corporation in the business of transportation, storage, terminalling and processing of energy resources.  KCM purchased a significant number of shares in MRMC from a key stakeholder, and was assigned that seller’s causes of action against members of management and the Board of Directors for, among other claims, shareholder oppression, breach of fiduciary duty, wrongful entrenchment and dilution, abuse of control, gross mismanagement and fraud stemming from the Directors’ alleged improper issuance of well over $50 million of MRMC stock for the purpose of entrenching management and diluting certain minority shareholders.  MRMC and the MRMC Employee Stock Ownership Trust also opposed KCM in this action, and, along with the other defendants, asserted counterclaims for over $20 million in alleged damages against all plaintiffs and other third parties.  After two years of intense litigation that involved several other related lawsuits, the case settled favorably for KCM for a confidential amount.

Gardner Denver, Inc. v. Houston Service Industries
Represented the defendant in a trade secrets case involving multistage centrifugal blowers utilized in wastewater systems and industrial applications.  In the middle of discovery, the plaintiff non-suited its claims with prejudice.

Farouk Systems Inc. v. Costco Wholesale Corporation
Represented Farouk Systems, manufacturer of the popular CHI hair care products, in an action against Costco concerning the sale of counterfeit products.  After a seven day trial, the jury determined that Costco had sold a counterfeit CHI hair iron. The jury also awarded Farouk Systems the maximum statutory damages for non-willful trademark infringement under the Lanham Act.  After the jury award, the court entered a permanent injunction prohibiting Costco from selling counterfeit CHI hair irons.

LCIA Arbitration
Represented a pre-eminent AmLaw 100 law firm in a significant contract dispute both before the London Court of International Arbitration and in collateral litigation in federal and state courts in Houston.  See Waiguh Siag v. King & Spalding LLP, 2010 WL 2671580 (S.D. Tex. June 30, 2010).


University of TexasJ.D.with high honors2008
  Order of the Coif
  Chief Articles Editor, Texas Law Review

University of TexasB.B.A.2003Finance


Named in Legal 500 US
  Recommended in General Commercial Disputes, 2018
  Recommended in Energy Litigation, 2017

Named to Benchmark Litigation’s “Under 40 Hot List,” 2017-2018

Named a “Texas Rising Star” by Thomson Reuters, 2014-2018

Admissions and Certifications

State Bar of Texas2008
United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
United States District Court for the Western District of Texas

Memberships and Affiliations

Houston Bar Association, Member
Houston Bar Foundation, Fellow

Presentations and Publications

“Classifying the Right to Rental Payment Streams Stripped Off a Lease,” 86 Tex. L. Rev. 857 (2007)