Specs Family Partners Ltd Sues First Data
Founded in 1988, Specs Family Partners Ltd. offers a variety of services for entrepreneurs. Their stores provide safe, colorful environments and helpful assistance to business owners. The company’s mission is to help entrepreneurs start and grow successful businesses. They strive to earn customers’ trust and loyalty by offering knowledgeable assistance.
Specs’s filed suit against First Data
A Texas liquor store chain, Specs’s Family Partners, filed a lawsuit against payment card provider First Data after two breaches hit the company’s payment card system. First Data allegedly passed on the cost of damage control to Spec’s by withholding payments. In response, Spec’s filed suit and the District Court ruled in its favor. First Data is appealing the judgment, and Spec’s is cross-appealing the interest awards.
According to the lawsuit, Spec’s had two data breaches resulting in a loss of nearly $6 million. During one of these breaches, First Data withheld proceeds from a routine payment card transaction and placed them into a reserve account. When Spec’s requested payment, First Data withheld the funds, claiming that the merchant did not pay for the data breach, citing a Merchant Agreement indemnification clause.
First Data argues that the breach occurred because Spec’s did not comply with the PCI DSS, but was still charged a fine of $10,000 by Visa. However, the district court rejected this argument, holding that “third-party fees and charges” refer to routine charges associated with card processing services.
Spec’s Family Partners, Ltd. filed suit against First Data in December 2014 in the Western District of Tennessee. Although First Data had complied with its Defense Funding Agreement obligations for a few months, the company continued to refuse to pay Spec’s attorneys’ fees and costs for the Tennessee Litigation. The company also claimed that the Tennessee Litigation was not a defense expense, and that it was in the pursuit of an affirmative claim against First Data.
After the attacks, Spec’s Family Partners had to undergo a thorough investigation to determine what caused the data breach. Afterwards, Spec’s took measures to become fully PCI DSS compliant. It also increased the encryption level of its account data. However, despite these efforts, the company did not fully comply with the PCI DSS and left itself vulnerable to cyberattacks.
The US District Court for the Western District of Tennessee denied First Data’s motion for summary judgment. After interpreting the Merchant Agreement, the district court found that the “card brand assessments” were “consequential damages.” Spec’s retains liability under the Merchant Agreement’s third-party fees and charges. It also found that First Data breached the contract by imposing these assessments.
Spec’s Family Partners Ltd. filed suit against First Data in April 2017. Spec’s filed the lawsuit under Texas law, seeking a declaratory judgment on Hanover’s duty to defend. It also sought damages under Texas Insurance Code and attorneys’ fees. The case is ongoing and should be tried to determine the actual damages.
In its initial brief, Spec’s relied on a clause in the Merchant Agreement that governed interest rates. The agreement stated that delinquent payments would bear interest of 18% per annum, but that the rate was lower than the state’s statutory formula rate. First Data then applied its Rule 59(e) motion to amend the judgment and reduced the interest rate to 1.79%, consistent with federal law.
Specs’s sued TABC
In a recent court case, a Texas retail chain named Spec’s Family Partners Ltd. sued the TABC. The suit alleges violations of PCI data security standards. The company suffered a breach of its credit card network due to hackers who were able to steal information from its system. FirstData Merchant Services then demanded indemnification from Spec’s and withheld $4.2 million from the company. As of this writing, Spec’s has not responded to the lawsuit.
Spec’s operates liquor stores throughout Texas under the name Spec’s Wines, Spirits, and Finer Foods. In 2012, the TABC received a complaint against the chain and began an investigation. This investigation lasted about three years. During the course of the investigation, TABC officials invited the company to attend a meeting with them. Spec’s lawyers claimed that the TABC had fabricated evidence to convict them.
The TABC did not prove any of the allegations made in the suit, but that didn’t stop Spec’s from filing the lawsuit. The TABC was not able to produce evidence to support its allegations, and their lawyers failed to disclose it to the witnesses. Ultimately, the TABC was not able to impose any fines against Spec’s because it failed to prove the allegations. However, Spec’s is suing for unspecified damages, including $1 million in attorneys’ fees. Moreover, it is seeking damages for harm to reputation, exemplary, and punitive damages.
The Texas company Specs Family Partners, LTD, has over 120 retail locations and carries a wide variety of products. It is a part of a corporate family of over 120 firms. It also provides training for business owners.
Specs alleges that the agency violated its rights by providing false testimony during the spring proceedings, which were the administrative equivalent of a trial. The state lawyers have argued that they cannot be sued because the agency is sovereign and that their actions are not protected by precedent.
Specs Family Partners Ltd is a Texas company that employs 88 people. The corporate headquarters is located at 5959 Royal Lane in Dallas. It has three San Antonio locations and one location in Live Oak. The company has been criticized in the past for storing information from their customers and for data breach. It has also been sued by Hanover Insurance Co.
Specs has argued that the TABC improperly used testimony from an employee who gave false testimony during the SOAH hearings. This testimony, sourced from a former TABC auditor, was used as leverage in a settlement agreement and as the basis for additional charges against Spec’s in the SOAH proceeding. In addition, Specs argues that the TABC intentionally misled the public by hiding evidence.
Specs’s sued TABC employees
The Specs family partners Ltd sued TABC employees after the agency refused to grant new permits for its liquor stores. The lawsuit outlines the agency’s violations and demands punitive damages. The suit is seeking three times the amount of damages that Specs would have suffered if the agency had acted properly.
The TABC conducted an investigation into the Spec’s stores and issued a Notice of Violation letter alleging that the company violated numerous laws and regulations. The TABC then filed a Notice of Violation against Specs with the Texas State Office of Administrative Hearings. The SOAH consolidated the three protests with the original Spec’s case. The Administrative Law Judges ruled in favor of Spec’s on every allegation made in the lawsuit.
Specs, which owns liquor stores throughout Texas, denied that it violated the law. However, the company had been unable to prove this claim without evidence, and TABC was ultimately unable to elicit any evidence from the company. The TABC had froze the store permits throughout the three-year investigation.
Despite denying all allegations, the TABC tried to pressure the company into settling the case. Spec’s argues that the TABC did not prove its allegations and failed to disclose evidence to witnesses. The lawsuit also argues that the TABC stacked the charges against the company, causing it to lose credibility and profitability.
Spec’s lawsuit alleges that the TABC’s employees and representatives deliberately concealed evidence. In addition, the TABC used Anderson’s testimony to settle the investigation and to supplement SOAH allegations. Despite the TABC’s defense, Specs failed to show that it was aware of the faulty evidence and used it as evidence in settling the case.
The Specs Family Partners Ltd is a Texas-based liquor vendor with over 120 locations. It is one of the largest vendors of liquor in the Greater Houston area. The Specs Family Partners, LTD corporate family includes more than 120 other companies that include manufacturing and other activities related to the liquor industry. The company employs more than 120 employees.
The TABC is expected to request the State Office of Administrative Hearings to reconsider the decision. This could lead to another round of legal wrangling in state district courts. But, for now, the TABC has accepted the judgment in Specs’ lawsuit. Its employees have over 120 firms under its umbrella. Its headquarters are located at 5959 Royal Ln Suite 635.
Specs’ claim does not allege an ongoing violation of federal law and fails to establish that the Defendants are entitled to absolute immunity. It also fails to allege an interest that a plaintiff can prove was infringed. If the plaintiff can’t do either, the court will likely find the complaint to be frivolous.