# No. 01 -15-00680-CV

________________________________________________________ IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST COURT OF APPEALS AT HOUSTON, TEXAS

_________________________________________________________ ESP RESOURCES, INC. f/k/a PANTERA PETROLEUM, INC., Appellant,

v. BWC MANAGEMENT, INC., Appellee. On Appeal from the 113 th Judicial District Court in Harris County Trial Court Case No. 2013

- 25068

___________________________________________________________ APPELLEE’S BRIEF

__________________________________________________________ TIMOTHY J. HENDERSON 6300 West Loop South, Suite 280 Bellaire, Texas 77401

- 2905 713.667.7878 713.668.5697 (fax) timjhenderson@msn.com
COUNSEL FOR APPELLEE November 16 , 2015 ACCEPTED 01-15-00680-CV FIRST COURT OF APPEALS

HOUSTON, TEXAS 11/16/2015 1:30:28 PM CHRISTOPHER PRINE

CLERK_______________ Page ii (a) Identity of Parties and Counsel For ESP Resources, Inc. f/k/ a Pantera Petrol eu m , Inc. (“ ESP ”), Appellant : David A. Fettner, Esq.

F ETTNER T HOMPSON 6700 Sands Point Drive Houston, Texas 77074 713.626.7277 1.888.876.2292 daf@fettnerthompson.com services@fettnerthompson.com and Joshua D. Brinen, Esq. B RINEN & A SSOCIATES , LLC 7 Dey Street, Suite 1503 New York, New York 10007 1.212.330.8151 1.212.227.0201 (fax) jbrinen@brinenlaw.com
For BWC Management, Inc. (“ BWC ”), Appellee : Timothy J. Henderson 6300 West Loop South, Suite 280 Bellaire, Texas 77401

- 2905 713.667.7878 713.668.5697 (fax) timjhenderson@msn.com The Reporter’s Record of the Trial proceeding will b e referenced by the abbreviation “RR” followed by the name of the witness, if pertinent, the volume, the page and the line numbers, or if an exhibit , “RR” followed by the volume and the_______________ Page iii page number(s), the trial exhibit number , a document description

. There are 7 volumes in the Reporter’s Record. The official Trial Court Clerk’s Record will be referenced by the abbreviation “CR” followed by identification of which of the Clerk’s Records is being referenced , if necessary, and then to the cited page num bers. There is 1 Volume of the Clerk’s
Records

._______________ Page iv (b) Table of Contents (a) Identity of Parties and Counsel ii (b) Table of Contents iv (c) I ndex of Authorities v (d) Statement of the Case 1 (e) Statement of Jurisdiction 2 (f) Issues Presented 3 (g) Statement of Facts 4 (h) Summary of the Argument 6 (i) Argument 7 A. Admission of Evidence: 7 B. Exclusion of Evidence: 12 C. Legal and Factual Insufficiency Points: 15 (j) Prayer 19 NOTICE OF ELECTRONIC FILING 20 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 20 CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE 21_______________ Page v (c) Index of Authorities Cases 4M Linen & Uniform Supply Co. v. W.P. Ballard & Co ., 793 S.W.2d 320 (Tex. App.

- Houston [1 st Dist.] 1990, writ denied)

.............. 12, 13 Barnhart v. Morales , 459 S.W.3d 733 (Tex. App.

– Houston [14 th Dist.] March 5, 2015, no. pet)

................................ ................................ ................................ ................ 8, 9 Bay Area Healthcare Grp., Ltd. v. McShane , 239 S.W.3d 231 (Tex. 2007)

................................ ................................ ................ 10 Bowie Memorial Hosp. v. Wright , 79 S.W.3d 48 (Tex. 2002)

................................ ................................ .................... 11 Caffe Ribs, Inc. v. State , 328 S.W.3d 919 (Tex. App.

– Houston [14 th Di st.] 2010, no pet.)

...................... 11 Cain v. Bain , 709 S.W.2d 175 (Tex. 1986)

................................ ................................ ................ 16 Cappuccitti v. Gulf Indus. Products, Inc. , 222 S.W.3d 468 (Tex. App.

– Houston [1 st Dist.] 2007, no pet.)

........................ 18 City of Brownsville v. Alvarado , 897 S.W.2d 750 (Tex. 1995)

................................ ................................ ................ 10 City of Keller v. Wilson , 168 S.W.3d 802 (Tex. 2005)

................................ ................................ ................ 16 COC Services, Ltd. v. CompUSA, Inc ., 150 S.W.3d 654 (Tex. App.

– Dallas 2004, pet. denied)

................................ ..... 18 Dillard Dep’t Stores, Inc. v. Hall , 909 S.W.2d 491 (Tex. 1995)

................................ ................................ ................ 15_______________ Page vi Gee v. Liberty Mut. Fire Ins. Co ., 765 S.W.2d 394 (Tex. 1989)

................................ ................................ ................ 10 GTE Mobilnet of S. Tex. v. Pascouet , 61 S.W.3d 599 (Tex. App.

– Houston [14 th Dist.] 2001, pet. denied)

................. 16 GTE Southwest, Inc. v. Bruce , 998 S.W.2d 605 (Tex. 1999)

................................ ................................ .................. 8 Holloway v. Skinner , 898 S.W.2d 793 (Tex.1995)

................................ ................................ ................. 18 Hooper v. Chittaluru , 222 S.W.3d 103 (Tex. App.

– Houston [14 th Dist.] 2006, pet. denied) (op. on reh’g)

................................ ................................ ........................... 11 In re E.A.K ., 192 S.W.3d 133 (Tex. App.

– Houston [14 th Dist.] 2006, pet. denied)

.................. 9 Interstate Northborough Partnership v. State , 66 S.W.3d 213 (Tex. 2001)

................................ ................................ .................. 11 K Mart Co rp. v. Sanderson , 937 S.W.2d 429 (Tex. 1996)

................................ ................................ ................ 15 Ludlow v. DeBerry , 959 S.W.2d 265 (Tex. App.

- Houston [14 th Dist.] 1997, no pet.)

.......................... 13 Maritime Overseas Corp. v. Ellis , 971 S.W.2d 402 (Tex. 1998)

................................ ................................ ................ 16 PGP Gas Prods., Inc. v. Fariss , 620 S.W.2d 559 (Tex. 1981)

................................ ................................ ................. 13 Pool v. Ford Motor Co ., 715 S.W.2d 629 (Tex. 1986)

................................ ................................ ................ 16 Prestige Ford. Co. v. Gilmore , 56 S.W.3d 73 (Tex. App.

– Houston [14 th Dist.] 2001, pet. denied)

.................... 11_______________ Page vii Texaco, Inc. v. Sanderson , 898 S.W.2d 813 (Tex. 1995)

................................ ................................ ................ 15 Wade v. Commission for Lawyer Discipli ne , 961 S.W.2d 366 (Tex. App.

- Houston [1 st Dist.] 1997, no pet.)

............................ 12 Walker v. Anderson , 232 S.W. 899 (Tex. App.

– Dallas 2007, no pet.)

................................ ................ 18 Statutes T EX
. R. A PP
. P . §25.1(b)

................................ ................................ ............................. 2 Rules Tex. R. App. P. 33.1(a)(1)(A)

- (B)

................................ ................................ ............ 14 T EX
. R. E VID . 103(a)

................................ ................................ ................................ 12 Tex. R. Evid. 103(a)(2)

................................ ................................ ............................ 14 Tex. R. Evid. 103(b)

................................ ................................ ................................ . 12 T EX
. R. E VID . 401

................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 15 Tex. R. Evid. 803(6)

................................ ................................ ................................ . 10 Tex. R. Evid. 902(10)

................................ ................................ ................................ . 9_______________ Page 1 (d) Statement of the Case This is a suit on 3 P romissory N otes ( R R, Volume 4 , Pages 3

- 8 ) . The case was tried to a jury which rendered a verdict on March 31, 2015 ( C R , Vol

. 1 , Page s 146

- 157 ). The Court granted a Judgment on the verdict on May 8, 2015 (CR, Vol

. 1 , Pages 165

- 1 67 ). ESP filed a notice of appeal (CR, Vol

. 2, Pages 264

- 265 )

._______________ Page 2 (e) State ment of Jurisdiction T he Appellate Court has jurisdiction of the District Court Appeal

. T EX
. R

. A PP
. P . § 25

. 1 ( b )

._______________ Page 3 (f) Issues Presented ISSUE 1 : Admission of Evidence

– The trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting relevant evidence offered by Appellee

. ISSUE 2: Exclusion of Evidence

– T he trial court did not abuse its discretion in excluding evidence offered by Appell ant on unrelated issues.
ISSUE 3: Legal and Factual Insufficiency Points

– The evidence was sufficient to support the jury’s findings

._______________ Page 4 (g) Statement of Facts On September 30, 2007, BWC loaned Pantera Petroleum, Inc. (“ Pantera ”), now ESP, as borrower, $73,006.00 documented by a promissory note signed by Pantera (the “ 73K Note ”). (RR, Vol

. 2, Page 36, Line 6 to Page 37, Line 3). The 73K Note was due on Septembe r 3 0, 2012. (RR, Vol

. 4, Pages 3

- 4 { 

## π Ex. 1} ). On July 30, 2008, BWC loaned Pantera $100,000 documented by a promissory note signed by Pantera (the “ 100K Note ”). (RR, Vol

. 2, Page 28, Lines
11

- 24). The 100 K Note was due on July 22, 2013

. (RR, Vol

. 4, Pages 5

- 6 { 

## π Ex. 2} ). On or about August 29, 2008, BWC loaned Pantera another $100,000.00 documented by a promissory note signed by Pantera (the “ Second 100K Note ”) 1

. (RR, Vol

. 2, Page 3 9 , Line s 10

- 19 ). The Second 100 K Note was also due on July 22, 2013

. (RR, Vol

. 4, Page 7

- 8 { 

## π Ex. 3} ). In addition to the exhibits, the president and sole shareholder of BWC, Jenny Cri cht on, addressed the funding of the 3 Promissory Notes (RR, Vol. 2, Page 31,

1 Jointly, the 73K Note, the 100K Note and the Second 100K Note will be referred to as the

“ 3 Promissory Notes ”

._______________ Page 5 Lines 15

- 20)

. Ms. Crichton testified that all 3 Promissory No tes were funded (RR, Vol. 2, Page 40, Lines 1

- 24). In December 2008, Pantera entered into an agreement with ESP Resources, Inc., a Delaware corporation, whereby Pantera acquired 100% ownership of ESP. Pantera changed its name to “ESP Resources, Inc.” (RR, David Dugas, Vol. 2, Page 126, Line 6 to Page 127, Line 20 and RR, Vol 6, Page 77 { 

## π Ex. 7}, ESP Form 10

- K {12

- 31

- 2013} ). ESP is publicly traded under the symbol “ESPI.” ( RR, Vol. 6, Page 77 { 

## π Ex. 7}, ESP Form 10

- K {12

- 31

- 2013} ). ESP recognize d the $273,000 from the 3 Promissory Notes as “notes payable” with “interest at 5 percent per annum and are due between September 30, 2012 and July 22, 2013” in several ESP’s audited Securities and Exchange Commission (“ SEC ”) public filings which the officers ce rtif ies were true and accurate. See (i) RR, Vol 4, Page 74 { 

## π Ex. 7}, ESP Form 10

- K {12

- 31

- 2013}; (ii) RR , Vol 7, Page
63 {∆ Ex. 14 }, ESP Form 10

- K {12

- 31

- 20 08 } ; and (iii) RR , Vol. 8, Page 72 { ∆ Ex. 1}, ESP Form 10

- K {12

- 31

- 20 09 }

. ESP/ Pantera’s own accountants, BDO Canada LLP (“ BDO ”), confirmed after audit , as publically reported by ESP, the receipt of the funds. (RR , Vol 4, Pages 11

- 22 {∆ Ex. 6}, BDO Business Records )

. The BDO business records in the case at_______________ Page 6 bar, which include an affidavit from Ly nn Watt and the document produced by BDO , pursuant to a Letter Rogatory issued in this case , demonstrate that the 3 Promissory
Notes were fully funded . (RR , Vol. 4, Page 11

- 22 { 

## π Ex. 6}, BDO Business Records). According to ESP’s auditors BDO, t he $73,006. 90 of the 73K Note was received on October 1, 2007. (RR , Vol 4, Page 13 { 

## π Ex. 6}, BDO Business Records). The $100,000.00 of the 100K Note was wired into Pantera’ account on August 11, 2008. (RR , Vol 4, Page 20 { 

## π Ex. 6}, BDO Business Records). The $100,000.00 of the Second 100K Note was wired into Pantera’ account on August 29, 2008. (RR , Vol 4, Page 20 { 

## π Ex. 6}, BDO Business Records). (h) Summary of the Argument BWC lent ESP $273,006.00 documented by 3 P romissory N otes. The 3
P romissory N otes were in default and were due. ESP did not pa y the 3 Promissory
Notes. At trial, BWC provided evidence of the 3 Promissory Notes, the funding of the 3 Promissory Notes, the default and the amount due. As such the Final Judgment and Order on the verdict should be affirmed._______________ Page 7 (i) Argument A. Admission of Evidence: Plaintiff E xhibits 4 and 5 are proof that money (corresponding exactly to the
amount in the $100K Note and the Second $100K Note that ESP signed) was
transferred to ESP. (RR { 

### π Ex. 4 &6}, Vol. 4, Pages 9

- 10).
T he president and sole shareholder of BWC, Jenny Crichton testified that Exhibits 4 and 5 were written confirmation to her that the loan money had been funded. ESP, through its president David Dugas, admitted ESP did get the money (as a lo ng term debt). (RR, Vol 2, Page 41, Lines 3 to Page 42, Line 2 and RR, Vol 2, Page 148, Lines 2

- 22)

. Previously, Ms. Crichton testified that all 3 Promissory Notes were funded (RR, Vol. 2, Page 40, Lines 1

- 24). ESP, through its president David Dugas, admitted and disclosed in public filings that ESP got the money from
the loans

. See RR, Vol 4, Page 74 { 

## π Ex. 7}, ESP Form 10

- K {12

- 31

- 2013}. Furthermore, Exhibits 4 and 5 are also cumulated to the evidence from ES P own accounting firm, contained in Exhibit 6 (discussed below) that confirmed that the $ 100K Note and the Second $100K Note were funded. While no error was committed, certainly the admissions of E xhibits 4 and 5 did not cause an improper judgment. Exhibi ts 2 and 3 {the $ 100K Note and the Second $100K Note } came into evidence without objection. Exhibit 7, ESP ’ s own_______________ Page 8 SEC 10

- K filing showing the long term obligations of the $ 100K Note and the Second $100K Note , came into evidence without objection. See, Rep orter ’ s Record, Vol. 3, pg.7, Lines 1

- 8. On the basis of these 3 documents alone, the jury could have rendered the exact same judgment. Therefore, the district court ’ s admission of Exhibits 4 and 5 would have been harmless. When erroneously admitted evid ence is cumulative, the error is harmless. GTE Southwest, Inc. v. Bruce , 998 S.W.2d 605, 615 (Tex. 1999)

. Exhibit 6 was a business record affidavit from ESP own auditors obtained by a letter rogatory early in discovery in this case. The Exhibit was offered as , and with , a business records affidavit. (RR , Vol. 2 , Page 1 00 , Line 8 to Page 101 , Line 1 3)

. The ma jor issue here seems to be handwritten notes on the auditors ’ for m s. Barnhart v. Morales , 459 S.W.3d 733 ( Tex. App.

– Houston [14 th Dist.] March 5,
2015 , no. pet ) addressed this very issue

. In Barnhart , Barnhart complained about the trial court ’ s admission of Barnhart ’ s Memorial Hermann Hospital emergency room medical records, without redacting the handwritten notes th at hospital staff made on preprinted hospital forms while treating Barnhart. The challenged handwritten notes include comments that Barnhart appeared intoxicated, was uncooperative, and had to be restrained by hospital staff in order to be treated for her injuries. In Barnhart ’ s view, these_______________ Page 9 handwritten notes are hearsay within hearsay and inadmissible because there is no indication who wrote the notes or whether they had personal knowledge of the event or condition, rendering the notes untrustworthy. The Barnhart Court disagreed, writing:

“ Rule 803(6) of the Texas Rules of Evidence creates an exception to the hearsay rule for
A memorandum, report, record, or data compilation, in any form, of acts, events, conditions, opinions, or diagnoses, made at or near the time by, or from information transmitted by, a person with knowledge, if kept in the course of regularly conducted busin ess activity, and if it was the regular practice of that business activity to make the memorandum, report, record, or data compilation, all as shown by the testimony of the custodian or other qualified witness, or by affidavit that complies with Rule 902(1 0).... The challenged handwritten notes are found within medical records that were accompanied by an affidavit prepared by the custodian of records for Memorial Hermann Hospital in compliance with Rule 902(10). See Tex. R. Evid. 902(10) . The custodian ’ s affidavit provided that all 34 pages of records contained in Plaintiff ’ s Exhibit 18 were business records of Memorial Hermann Hospital that were kept in the regular course of the hospital ’ s business and that the records were made by an e mployee, representative, or a physician on the hospital ’ s medical staff who had personal knowledge of the act, event, or condition being recorded. There is no requirement that the custodian preparing the affidavit be the creator of the records or have per sonal knowledge of the information recorded in the document but only knowledge of how the records were prepared. In re E.A.K ., 192 S.W.3d 133, 142 (Tex. App.

– Houston [14 th Dist.] 2006, pet. denied)

. As Rule 803(6) makes clear, the hearsay exception applies to all business records regardless of their form. See Tex. R. Evid. 803(6)

._______________ Page 10 The fact that some parts of the challenged records were handwritten notes on preprinted forms designed to be filled in by the hospital ’ s staff while evaluating and treating emergency room patients does not take them outside of the business records h earsay exception.... Here, the challenged records, along with the business records affidavit, establish that the handwritten notes were made by Memorial Hermann Hospital staff while treating Barnhart in the emergency room. Barnhart has not shown that the handwritten nature of these notes renders them untrustworthy. We therefore conclude the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it overruled Barnhart ’ s hearsay within hearsay objection and admitted Plaintiff's Exhibit 18 without redacting the handw ritten notes. ” Barnhart at 743

- 44

. Moreover, there was no reversible harm because the jury had before it other evidence of the funding via the testimony of Ms. Crichton (RR, Vol. 2, Page 40, Lines 1

- 24). See TEX. R. APP. P. 44.1(a). The admission or exclusion of evidence rests within the sound discretion of the trial court. City of Brownsville v. Alvarado , 897 S.W.2d 750 , 753 (Tex. 1995) and Bay Area Healthcare Grp., Ltd. v. McShane , 239 S.W.3d 231, 234 (Tex. 2007)

. To obtain reversal of a judgment based on error of the trial court in admission or exclusion of evidence, the following must be shown: (1) the trial court did in fact commit error, and (2) that the error was reasonably calculated to cause a nd probably did cause rendition of an improper judgment. Gee v. Liberty Mut. Fire Ins. Co ., 765 S.W.2d 394, 396 (Tex. 1989)

. When reviewing matters committed to the tri al court’s discretion, a reviewing_______________ Page 11 court may not substitute its own judgment for that of the trial court. Bowie Memorial Hosp. v. Wright , 79 S.W.3d 48, 52 (Tex. 2002) . Thus, the question is not whether this Court would have admitted the evidence. Rather, an appellate court should uphold the trial court’s evidentiary ruling if there is any legitimate basis for the ruling, even if that ground was not raised i n the trial court. Hooper v. Chittaluru , 222 S.W.3d 103, 107 (Tex. App.

– Houston [14 th Dist.] 2006, pet. denied) (op. on reh’g). A party seeking to reverse a judgment based on evidentiary error must prove that the error probably resulted in rendition of an improper judgment, which usually requires the complaining party to show that the judgment turns on the particul ar evidence excluded or admitted. Prestige Ford. Co. v. Gilmore , 56 S.W.3d 73, 78 (Tex. App.

– Houston [14 th Dist.] 2001, pet. denied) . To determine whether excluded evidence probably resulted in the rendition of an improper judgment, an appellate court reviews the entire record. Caffe Ribs, Inc. v. State , 328 S.W.3d 919, 927 (Tex. App.

– Houston [14 th Dist.] 2010, no pet. ) (citing Interstate Northborough Partnership v. State , 66 S.W.3d 213, 220 (Tex. 2001) ). While no error was committed, certainly the admission of exhibit 6 did not cause an improper judgment. Exhibits 1 {the $ 73K Notes} came into evidence without objection. Exhibit 7, ESP ’ s own SEC 10

- K filing showing the long term_______________ Page 12 obligations of the $ 73K Note, came into evidence without objection. See, Reporter ’ s Record, Vol. 3, pg.7, Lines 1

- 8. On the basis of these 2 documents alone, the jury could have rendered the ex act same judgment. B. Exclusion of Evidence: ESP did not preserve error on any exclusion of evidence matter Texas recognizes two types of offers to preserve error: the offer of proof (formerly referred to as an informal bill of exception) and the formal bill of exception. See T EX
. R. E VID . 103(a) , (b) ; T EX
. R. A PP
. P . 33.2; 4M Linen & Uniform Supply Co. v. W.P. Ballard & Co ., 793 S.W.2d 320, 323 (Tex. App.

- Houston [1 st Dist.] 1990, writ denied)

. To challenge exclusion of evidence by the trial court on appeal, the complaining party must present the excluded evidence to the trial court by offer of proof. Wade v. Commission for Lawyer Discip line , 961 S.W.2d 366, 374 (Tex. App.

- Houston [1 st Dist.] 1997, no pet.)

. Texas Rule of Evidence 103 (b) provide “ (b) Record of Offer and Ruling. The offering party shall, as soon as practicable, but before the court ’ s charge is read to the jury, be allowed to make, in the absence of the jury, its offer of proof. ” An offer of proof preserves error for appeal if (1) it is made befor e the court, the court reporter, and opposing counsel, outside the presence of the jury;_______________ Page 13 (2) it is preserved in the reporter ’ s record; and (3) it is made before the charge is read to the jury. See, 4M Linen & Uniform Supply Co

. at 323 (construing requirements of offer of proof under former rule 52(b) of the Rules of Appellate Procedure).
ESP did not submit the evidence excluded by offer of proof before the court ’ s charge was read to the jury. The offer of proof serves primarily to enable the reviewing court to assess whether excluding the evidence was erroneous and, if so, whether the error was harmful. See Ludlow v. DeBerry , 959 S.W.2d 265, 270 (Tex. App.

- Houston [14 th Dist.] 1997, no pet.)

. The offer of proof also allows the trial court to reconsider its ruling in light of the evidence contained in the bill. Id and PGP Gas Prods., I nc. v. Fariss , 620 S.W.2d 559, 560 (Tex. 1981) (stating rationales underlying preservation

- of

- error requirement). Appellants appear to rely on a pretrial and tri al discussion s with the trial court when the trial court ruled the Appellants could not adduce testimony or evidence on concerning the unrelated SEC investigation. Rule 33 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure governs preservation of error. Rule 33.1(a)(1)( A)

- (B) states as follows: 33.1 Preservation; How Shown (a) In General. As a prerequisite to presenting a complaint for appellate review, the record must show that:_______________ Page 14 (1) the complaint was made to the trial court by a timely request, objection, or motion that : (A) stated the grounds for the ruling that the complaining party sought from the trial court with sufficient specificity to make the trial court aware of the complaint, unless the specific grounds were apparent from the context; and (B) complied with the requirements of the Texas Rules of Civil or Criminal Evidence or the Texas Rules of Civil or Appellate Procedure; and Tex. R. App. P. 33.1(a)(1)(A)

- (B) (underscored emphasis added); see also Tex. R. Evid. 103(a)(2) ( “ In case the ruling is one excluding evidence, the substance of the evidence was made known to the court by offer, or was apparent from the context within which questions were asked. ” )

. The Appellants did not offer the written exhibits or ask any questions as contemplated by rule 103(a)(2) of the Rules of Evidence. In any event, the unrelated SEC litigation involving Mr. Chri stopher Metcalf and Mr. Bob Vukavich was irrelevant. The investigation did not tend to make one issues in the case on the 3 Notes more likely or not. The Court, being generous on the relevancy point, still noted that “... the prejudicial value of that [ th e SEC litigation involving Metcalf and Vukavich] so outweighs the probative value. ” (Reporters Record, Vol. 3, Page 131, Lines 3

- 12). Further the Court noted that it was not_______________ Page 15 important in a note case for the jury to know that the SEC sued Mr. Christopher Metcalfe for manipulating stock price s . (Reporters Record, Vol. 3, Page 109, Lines
15

- 17). There is not a hint of impropriety in the transaction in the case at bar. ESP signed 3 Notes, got all the money it borrowed, and has not paid BWC the money back. Nothing about any other completely unrelated transactions involving BWC, its president, or its president’s former husband even whiffs of relevance in this case. Mr. Bob Vukovich’s actions or inactions, if any, would not lead to any evidence having any ten dency to make the existence, the amount and the non

- repayment of the 3 Notes more or less likely. T EX
. R. E VID . 401 . See K Mart Corp. v. Sanderson , 937 S.W.2d 429, 431 (Tex. 1996) ; Dillard Dep’t Stores, Inc. v. Hall , 909 S.W.2d 491, 492 (Tex. 1995) ; Texaco , Inc. v. Sanderson , 898 S.W.2d 813, 815 (Tex. 1995)

. C. Legal and Factual Insufficiency Points: When reviewing the legal sufficiency of the evidence, the Court should consider the evidence in the light most favorable to the challenged finding and indulge every reasonable inference that would support it. City of Keller v. Wilson , 168 S.W.3d 802 , 823 (Tex. 2005) . The Court must credit favorable evidence if a reasonable factfinder could

– and

– disregard contrary evidence unless a reasonable factfinder could not. See id. at 827. The Court must determine whether the evidence_______________ Page 16 at trial would enable reasonable and fair

- minded people to find the facts at issue. Id. The factfinder is the only judge of witness credibility and the weight to give to testimony. See id. at 819. When reviewing a challenge to the factual sufficiency of the evidence, the Court should examine the entire record, considering both the evidence in favor of, and contrary to, the challenged finding. Cain v. Bain , 709 S.W.2d 175, 176 (Tex. 1986) . After considering and weighing all the evidence, the Court can set aside the fact finding only if it is so contrary to the overwhelming weight of the evidence as to be clearly wrong and unjust. Pool v. Ford Motor Co ., 715 S.W.2d 629, 635 (Tex. 1986) . The trier of fact is the sole judge of the credibility of the witnesses and the weight to be given to their testimony. GTE Mobilnet of S. Tex. v. Pascouet , 61 S.W.3d 599 , 615

- 16 (Tex. App.

– Houston [14 th Dist.] 2001, pet. denied) . The Court may not substitute its judgment for that of the trier of fact, even if the Cou rt would reach a different answer on the evidence. Maritime Overseas Corp. v. Ellis , 971 S.W.2d 402 , 407 (Tex. 1998) . The amount of evidence necessary to affirm a judgment is far less than that necessary to reverse a judgment. Pascouet , 61 S.W.3d
at 616. ESP suggested an issue that the money it received as equity money, not a loan
b ased on the notes it signed (despite its own SEC filings to the contrary). But other_______________ Page 17 than raise the specter of the ‘equity’ issue, ESP proved nothing. No stock was issued (to FTS Financial) by ESP and Mr. Dugas did not issue any shares (RR, Vol. 2 , Page 10 8 , Lines 4

- 17). Such ‘proof’ of the issuance of ESP equity for a cash infusion should have been easy for ESP to establish

– if true. Appellee asserts that Ms. Crichton concede the loan was equity. Nothing could be further from the truth. The entire se quence of questions between counsel for Appellee and Ms. Crichton was based on a separate unrelated agreement when as follows: Q. FTS is a company that, you're saying, actually loaned the money to Pantera, correct? A. Yes. Q. I ’ m sorry? A. Yes. Q. Okay. Now, Mr. Henderson asked you earlier do you know the difference between debt and equity. And I believe you said that if they had a certificate, it would be equity. Correct? A. Yes. Q. And if you

-- if Pantera got equity from FTS

-- or sold equity to FTS, they wouldn't be required to pay it back, would they? A. No, not the equity. (RR, Vol. 2 , Page 56 , Lines 6

- 19 ). ESP’s President Mr. Dugas provided no evidence of the issuance of shares to FTS (RR, Vol. 3, Page 10 8 , Lines 1 5

- 17) and Mr. Dugas listed the money as loans in the SEC public filings which he certif ied were true and accurate. See, e.g., RR,_______________ Page 18 Vol 4, Page 74 { 

## π Ex. 7}, ESP Form 10

- K {12

- 31

- 2013} and RR, Vol 7, Page 63 {∆ Ex. 14}, ESP Form 10

- K {12

- 31

- 2008}. There is certainly nothing unjust about requiring a publically traded company to pay 3 Notes which its own President signed. As noted in the Court’s Charge, “A company is deemed to act through the actions and statements, if any, made by or for the benefit of the company by its officers and authorized representatives.” There were no objections to the Court’s Charge. See, Reporter ’ s Record, Vol. 3, pg. 4 , Lines 2

- 8

. As noted in Walker v. Anderson , 232 S.W. 899, 918 (Tex. App.

– Dallas 2007, no pet.) : “The acts of a corporate agent on behalf of the principal are ordinarily deemed to be the corporation’s acts. Holloway v. Skinner , 898 S.W.2d 793, 795 (Tex.1995) ; COC Services, Ltd. v. CompUSA, Inc ., 150 S.W.3d 654, 675 (Tex. App.

– Dallas 2004, pet. denied) . The individual employee or officer who acts for a corporation is that corporation’s agent. See Cappuccitti v. Gulf Indus. Products,
Inc. , 222 S.W.3d 468, 485 (Tex. App.

– Houston [1 st Dist.] 2007, no pet.) .” Ms. Crichton testified that she had BWC coordinate with a third party to provide ESP the money in connection with the 3 Notes, see, e.g., Reporters Record, Vol. 3, Page 39, Lines 2

- 5 {as to Note 1}; Reporters Record, Vol. 3, Page 44, Lines
2

- 12 {as to Note s 2 and 3}._______________ Page 19 Furthermore, Ms. Crichton confirmed that the money for the 3 Notes was funded by speaking with both the party that paid the money and the party (ESP) that got the money. Reporters Record, Vol. 3, Page 41, Lines 17

- 24. (j) Prayer THEREFORE, B WC requests that the Court AFFIRM th e Final Judgment and Order of the District Court

. R espectfully submitted this 16 th day of November 2015.

By: Timothy J. Henderson State Bar No. 09432500 6300 West Loop South, Suite 280 Bellaire, Texas 77401

- 2905 713.667.7878 713.668.5697 (fax) timjhenderson@msn.com COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF/APPELLEE,

BWC MANAGEMENT, INC.

OF COUNSEL: David Loev, Esq. State Bar No. 24002490 6300 West Loop South, Suite 280 Bellaire, Texas 77401

- 2905 713.524.4110 713.524.4122. (fax) dloev@loevlaw.com_______________ Page 20 NOTICE OF ELECTRONIC FILING I, Timothy J. Henderson, Attorney for Appellee BWC , certify that I have electronically submitted the foregoing brief for fi ling in accordance with the Electronic File and Serve System for the F irst Court of Appeals on November 16 th 2015. Timothy J. Henderson CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE This is to certify that a true and correct copy of the above pleading was served by United States Certified Mail, return receipt requested, postage prepaid, and/or by fax and/or by hand delivery and/or electronically through the electronic filing manager a nd/or by email by upon all persons or counsel at the address(es) below on the 16 th day of November 2015: David A. Fettner, Esq. F ETTNER T HOMPSON 6700 Sands Point Drive Houston, Texas 77074 713.626.7277 1.888.876.2292 (fax) daf@fettnerthompson.com Joshua D. Brinen, Esq. B RINEN & A SSOCIATES , LLC 7 Dey Street, Suite 1503 New York, New York 10007 1.212.330.8151 and 1.212.227.0201 (fax) jbrinen@brinenlaw.com
COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT /APPELLANT ESP RESOURCES, INC., f/k/a PANTERA PETROLEUM, INC.

Timothy J. Henderson_______________ Page 21 CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE Pursuant to T EX
. R. A PP
. P . 9.4(i)(3), undersigned counsel certifies that this brief complies with the type

- volume limitations.
1. Exclusive of the portions exempted by T EX
. R. A PP
. P . 9.4(i)(3), this brief contain s 4846 words printed in a proportionally spaced typeface. (In the alternative, for briefs prepared in monospaced typeface, you may certify the number of lines of text used).
2. T his brief is printed in a proportionally spaced typeface using Times New Roman 14 point font in text and Times New Roman 12 point font in footnotes produced by Word software.
3. U pon request, undersigned counsel will provide an electronic version of this brief and/or a copy of the word printout to the Court.
4. U ndersigned counsel understands that a material misrepresentation in completing this certificate, or circumvention of the type

- volume limits, may result in the Court’s striking this brief and imposing sanctions against the person who signed it.

Timothy J. Henderson