Recycling firm found guilty of breach of contract

Texas court rules GLM DFW Inc. overcharged utility firm over a four-year period.

A $1.5 million judgment has been made in favor of Texas-based Oncor Electric Delivery LLC in a breach of contract suit against waste and recycling management service provider GLM DFW Inc. (GLM) after a legal battle that lasted nearly two years.

On March 31, 2015, the 116th District Court of Dallas County, Texas, ruled in favor of Oncor, ordering Dallas-based GLM to pay the full contract amount of $876,000, along with 5 percent annual interest from when the lawsuit was filed. Additionally, Dallas County District Judge Tonya Parker ordered GLM to pay $528,000 in attorney fees and an additional $20,000 sanction due to “groundless and bad faith counterclaims.”

“This was a hard fought battle against egregious tactics and claims lodged by GLM, which unnecessarily taxed Oncor’s resources and prolonged the case,” says James Walker of law firm Cole Schotz P.C., which represented Oncor. “I’m grateful for the diligent work of the court and elated that Oncor was awarded all damages and attorneys’ fees and costs that it had sought.”

On Nov. 8, 2012, Oncor filed suit against GLM after discovering what it believed was evidence that GLM had consistently overcharged Oncor over a roughly four-year period. Ultimately, the amount identified as being owed Oncor as a result of the audit was slightly more than $875,000.

Oncor and GLM reached an accommodation to reimburse Oncor for this identified sum, but Cole Schotz P.C. says Oncor had to file suit “when GLM refused to abide by its payment obligation.”

After Oncor won summary judgment on liability and damages for GLM’s contractual obligation to pay the agreed upon audit amount, the parties litigated GLM counterclaims against Oncor, including claims for business disparagement, three counts of tortious interference with contract and prospective relations, breach of a separate contract unrelated to the scrap metal recycling services, conspiracy, fraud and fraudulent inducement.