The Texas Court of Appeals recently upheld a lower court's decision regarding a malicious prosecution case involving Daniel Gustav Tews and his former employer, ReignRock Capital Partners, LLC, along with its managing member, Robert D. Richardson. The court's ruling, issued on August 13, 2026, affirms that Tews presented sufficient evidence to support his claim of malicious prosecution against the appellants, despite their arguments to dismiss the case.
This case stems from a criminal charge of theft that Tews faced in 2023, which was later dismissed. Following the dismissal, Tews filed a lawsuit against ReignRock and Richardson, claiming that they had falsely accused him of theft, leading to his wrongful arrest. The court's decision is significant as it highlights the legal standards surrounding malicious prosecution claims and the protections offered under the Texas Citizen Participation Act (TCPA).
Background
The dispute began when Tews was employed as the Chief Financial Officer (CFO) of Falcon Steel America, LLC, a company connected to ReignRock through FSA Holdings, LLC. Tews was hired in November 2018 with a substantial salary and potential bonuses. However, as Falcon Steel faced financial difficulties, the company sought to sell its assets. Tews agreed to stay on temporarily through the sale, but tensions arose regarding his compensation and employment status.
In August 2019, Tews authorized significant payments to himself, including a severance payment and bonuses, which he claimed were agreed upon during discussions with Richardson and other managers. However, after Tews left the company, Falcon Steel demanded repayment of these amounts, alleging they were unauthorized. This led to a criminal investigation initiated by Richardson, resulting in Tews being indicted for felony theft. The charge was later dismissed, prompting Tews to file a lawsuit against ReignRock and Richardson for malicious prosecution, defamation, and conspiracy.
The Ruling
The Texas Court of Appeals, in its ruling, affirmed the trial court's decision to deny the motion to dismiss Tews's malicious prosecution claim under the TCPA. The court found that Tews had established a prima facie case for malicious prosecution, demonstrating that he was innocent of the theft charge and that the appellants lacked probable cause to initiate the criminal proceedings against him.
The court ruled, "Tews produced sufficient evidence to make a prima facie case for malicious prosecution even without the police report." The opinion was delivered by Justice Wallach, with Justices Kerr and Birdwell concurring.
The court noted that while the appellants argued that the information they provided to law enforcement was true, this did not negate the possibility of malicious prosecution. The court emphasized that the burden was on the appellants to show an affirmative defense, which they failed to do.
Impact
This ruling has significant implications for future malicious prosecution claims in Texas. It reinforces the notion that individuals wrongfully accused of crimes can seek legal recourse against those who instigate baseless criminal charges. The court's decision also clarifies the standards of evidence required to establish a prima facie case for malicious prosecution, which may encourage more individuals to pursue similar claims when they believe they have been wrongfully prosecuted.
The outcome of this case may also influence how companies handle allegations of misconduct involving employees. Organizations may need to exercise greater caution before reporting employees to law enforcement, as doing so could expose them to liability for malicious prosecution if the allegations are unfounded.
What's Next
While the court's ruling affirms Tews's malicious prosecution claim, it remains to be seen whether the appellants will seek to appeal the decision to a higher court. There are currently no related cases pending that are directly tied to this matter.