General Capital Group Beteligungsberatung GMBH v. AT & T, 407 S.W.3d 507

GC appeals a summary judgment favoring AT&T after GC alleged an oral contract to broker AT&T's acquisition of T-Mobile and a 2% contingent fee of $39B.
No written agreement or follow-up email documented the alleged contract; negotiation occurred in January 2009 with a May 2009 second conference.
Between May 2009 and May 2011 there was no communication; in March 2011 AT&T announced it would pursue TM and GC sued for breach of contract.
AT&T moved to dismiss as not ripe due to contingency; the case was abated 120 days, then AT&T abandoned its TM bid and GC's contract claim failed.
GC amended its petition to focus on quantum meruit and fraud; trial court granted summary judgment take-nothing against GC, which appeals.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Fraud: Was there causation supporting fraud liability?	GC	ATT	GC's fraud claim fails; no injury proven due to lack of causation.
Quantum meruit: Did GC prove entitlement given contingent payment expectation?	GC	ATT	GC failed to show an expectation of payment; quantum meruit not supported.

Aquaplex, Inc. v. Rancho La Valencia, Inc., 297 S.W.3d 768 (Tex. 2009) (fraud elements; causation required)
Formosa Plastics Corp., USA v. Presidio Eng’rs & Contractors, Inc., 960 S.W.2d 41 (Tex. 1998) (fraud causation standard)
Prospect High Income Fund v. Grant Thornton, LLP, 203 S.W.3d 602 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2006) (injury causation; substantial factor standard)
Hartford Fire Ins. Co. v. C. Springs 300, Ltd., 287 S.W.3d 771 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2009) (proof that conduct substantially caused injury)
Carlton Energy Group v. Phillips, 369 S.W.3d 433 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2012) (distinguishable; value of contingent interest not realized here)
Lamajak v. Frazin, 230 S.W.3d 786 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2007) (contingent-payment case; actual fulfillment matters)
Vortt Exploration Co., Inc. v. Chevron U.S.A., Inc., 787 S.W.2d 942 (Tex. 1990) (essential element of quantum meruit is expectation of payment)
Heldenfels Bros. v. City of Corpus Christi, 832 S.W.2d 39 (Tex. 1992) (presence of an expectations-based quantum meruit standard)
Myrex Indus., Inc. v. Ortolon, 126 S.W.3d 548 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2003) (quantum meruit considerations in contract-like claims)
West Teleservices, Inc. v. Carney, 75 S.W.3d 455 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2001) (quantum meruit; payment expectation required)