Hunton & Williams and Insight Equity Hit With $150 Million Lawsuit

Hunton & Williams and Insight Equity sued for allegedly engaging in illegal activity. Insight Equity and its portfolio company Superior Silica Sands wrongfully oust its supply chain partner to allegedly contract a better price on frac sand directly from their partner's source.

News provided by

Minerals Development & Supply Company

Aug 05, 2010, 03:00 ET

CHICAGO, Aug. 5 /PRNewswire/ -- Hunton & Williams, LLP and its client Insight Equity have been slapped with a $150-million lawsuit by Minerals Development & Supply Company for tortious interference of a contract, aiding and abetting the commission of a tort and civil conspiracy. The suit was filed Friday, July 30, 2010 in the Circuit Court of Monroe County, Wisconsin (case #10-CV-428).

Minerals Development & Supply Company is being represented by the Chicago, Illinois law firm of Konicek & Dillon.

Hunton & Williams, LLP is a large law firm with offices in the United States, Europe and Asia according to its website. Its principal place of business is located in Richmond, Virginia.

Insight Equity is a private equity firm that makes investments in "middle market companies underperforming to their full potential." Insight Equity principal place of business is Southlake, Texas. Insight Equity owns Superior Silica Sands located in Kosse, Texas.

According to the suit, Hunton & Williams intentionally interfered with Minerals Development & Supply Company's exclusive supply agreement for frac sand, and aided and abetted and conspired with Insight Equity and its principals Victor Vescovo and Brandon Bethea in doing the same.

"Frac" sand is sand intended to be pumped into oil and gas wells for the purpose of reservoir stimulation, gravel packing, well bore sand control and sand plugs.

The suit specifically cites, "attorneys from Hunton & Williams, including that Sean Ducharme, Jeffery Edwards, Kimberly Magee, were deeply involved in the efforts to cut Minerals Development & Supply Company out of the supply chain."

The suit also sites, "Wisconsin law recognizes that when an attorney and/or law firm engages in conduct which they know or should know is intended to further the tortious conduct of another, that law firm may be found liable and should be found liable for aiding and abetting the commission of tortious interference."