William A Cohan, P.C. Attorney at Law

Call Today: 442-437-1729

William A Cohan, P.C. Attorney at Law
EMAIL

Call

Receive Compassionate, Determined And Sophisticated Legal Support

Your Partners In Justice With Experience And Integrity

Are you or your business entrenched in a legal challenge? Our litigators at William A. Cohan, P.C., have been protecting individuals and businesses in state and federal courts for decades. Our founder, William A. Cohan has been practicing law since 1976. His son, Gabriel Cohan, has been practicing law since 2008. We are committed to providing high-quality legal representation that puts your needs first.

You can read more about our lawyers and their backgrounds and experience here:

Legal Representation For Complex Civil And Criminal Cases

At William A. Cohan, P.C., we are committed to protecting your property and fighting for your freedom in complex civil and criminal cases. Our lawyers have decades of experience defending and prosecuting hundreds of cases in federal trial and appellate courts across the United States. We are equipped to handle even the most intricate legal challenges. Depending on the details of the controversy — such as, tax/accounting, trade secrets, scientific, commercial or otherwise, geography or location — we assemble a team of experienced professionals focused on effectively and efficiently solving the most difficult problems. Nearly all our engagements are based on referrals from other attorneys, accountants, and other professionals familiar with the quality and creativity of our work. Our practice areas include:

  • Business law: We help businesses with their startup and operating duties, negotiate contracts and manage transactions, and compliance obligations to protect your company’s interests and achieve your business goals.
  • Commercial litigation: When disputes arise, we are prepared to advocate for your rights in court, working to resolve conflicts efficiently and effectively.
  • Tax litigation: We represent individuals and businesses in tax disputes with the IRS California Franchise Tax Board (FTB) and other taxing authorities, ensuring you receive fair treatment and minimizing potential penalties.
  • White collar criminal defense: If you’re facing allegations of fraud, embezzlement, tax evasion or other white collar crimes, we’ll work tirelessly to defend your reputation and freedom.

Our business and commercial lawyers are committed to providing personalized and customized service for each client. Unlike larger firms, we have the capacity to deliver on this commitment. You will work directly with our attorneys, who will take the time to understand your unique situation and develop a tailored strategy to achieve your goals.

Our Successes Ignite Us

After a 4-year battle in Houston, Texas, on April 25, 2025, we won a multimillion-dollar jury verdict (ably assisted by Texas counsel Rob Millimet and Jennifer Richards) including punitive damages and attorneys’ fees—establishing that a rival stole our client’s chemical cleaning formula trade secret (valued at more than $50 million) used in oil refineries worldwide. See EnvTech, Inc. vs. Paul Taylor and USA Debusk, Cause No. 2021-02657, In the district Court of Harris County, Texas, 129th  Judicial District.

EnvTech Secures Major Dual Victory: Unanimous $3M Trade Secret Judgment and Landmark Federal RICO Reversal

HOUSTON, TX — In a rare and definitive dual victory spanning state and federal jurisdictions, EnvTech, Inc. has successfully secured a multimillion-dollar state court judgment and a pioneering federal appellate court victory against competitor USA DeBusk, LLC (USAD) and its founder and CEO for the systematic theft of EnvTech’s intellectual property. EnvTech is principally represented by William Cohan of Carlsbad, CA-based Cohan & Cohan, and Robert M. Millimet of Dallas, TX-based Richards Law PLLC. 

Unanimous State Court Jury Verdict and Permanent Injunction

On June 11, 2026, the Honorable Michael Gomez of the 129th Judicial District Court of Harris County, Texas, entered a final judgment awarding EnvTech damages, punitive damages, attorneys’ fees, costs, and prejudgment interest totaling approximately $3 million. 

The judgment follows a seven-day trial where a 12-person jury found by clear and convincing evidence that USAD willfully and maliciously misappropriated EnvTech’s trade secret chemical formula. EnvTech uses its proprietary chemical formula globally to clean hydrofluoric alkylation (“HF alky”) units in oil refineries safely and efficiently. 

In addition to the monetary award, Judge Gomez issued a permanent injunction legally blocking USAD from using or disclosing EnvTech’s trade secret chemical formula in any future refinery cleanings, or marketing, or research and development efforts. Full details are available in the attached file-stamped Final Judgment. 

Precedent-Setting Federal Court RICO Decision

After investigating EnvTech’s trade secret misappropriation claim for the state court case, Messrs. Millimet and Cohan filed a federal lawsuit under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act against USAD’s founder and CEO, Patrick Andrew DeBusk, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas. The suit alleges that the theft of EnvTech’s trade secret was part of a pattern of intentionally poaching competitors’ key personnel to steal those competitors’ valuable confidential information. 

Following an initial dismissal by the district court, EnvTech appealed. On June 9, 2026, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit issued a landmark decision fully reinstating the RICO lawsuit. Circuit Judge Dana M. Douglas, writing for the unanimous panel, determined that EnvTech adequately pled that Mr. DeBusk engaged in an open-ended pattern of racketeering activity based on USAD’s multiple and related trade secret thefts. 

The issues before the Fifth Circuit were whether: (1) EnvTech sufficiently alleged that DeBusk personally committed or conspired to commit trade secret theft under 18 U.S.C. § 1832(a) with criminal intent; and (2) EnvTech sufficiently alleged a “pattern of racketeering activity” under RICO (18 U.S.C. § 1962(c) based on multiple trade secret thefts.

The Fifth Circuit relied on: (1) the uniqueness of EnvTech’s trade secret, evidenced by its 80% market share; (2) DeBusk’s status as major shareholder and CEO with extensive control over USAD; and (3) DeBusk’s deposition admissions concerning his personal participation in soliciting competitors’ key employees, including his knowledge that USAD used EnvTech’s technology. The court rejected DeBusk’s claims that he merely encouraged growth while underlings stole trade secrets without his approval: “. . .even if we accepted that the facts EnvTech alleges were equally explainable on two different theories, DeBusk cites no authority for the proposition that a tie must go to the defendant.”

EnvTech’s First Amended Complaint incorporated specific facts from four other trade secret lawsuits against USAD by competitors, which were “specific enough to plead additional RICO predicate acts,” adding “to require more would be to require EnvTech to plead facts it cannot realistically know without discovery.”

The Fifth Circuit held that the RICO open-ended continuity pattern was shown by (1) the alleged modus operandi with multiple victims, soliciting competitors’ key employees to obtain and use stolen trade secrets; (2) DeBusk’s failure to punish the employees whose thefts generated litigation; and (3) DeBusk’s continued use of stolen trade secrets even after EnvTech’s state court lawsuit was filed. The court quoted DeBusk’s deposition testimony that he “never thought about trade secrets” but focused on “execution of hiring people” as a false exculpatory statement constituting evidence of criminal intent.

This federal ruling represents a major milestone in trade secret jurisprudence by enforcing the 2016 RICO Act amendment adding trade secret theft to the list of RICO predicate crimes. The full Fifth Circuit Opinion is attached. 

The federal case now returns to the district court for discovery and trial. 

A year before that in Sam Nang Lukacinsky vs. Robert John Lukacinsky, Case No. 1DV181001319, Family Court First Circuit State of Hawai’i, after another 4-year discovery battle we settled a complex, multimillion dollar, multi-state real estate fraudulent concealment divorce case in Honolulu with our client obtaining all the identified marital real property.  Also in 2024, after significant litigation (ably assisted by Texas co-counsel Jim Henry and Ed Perrin) in Joseph M. Coleman, as Liquidating Trustee of the Spherature Liquidating Trust vs. Michael Azcue, Adversary No. 22-04058, U.S. Bankruptcy Court, Eastern District of Texas, Sherman Division, we settled a $35 million claim against our client in Bankruptcy Court in Dallas, TX, for $850K—less than the cost of litigating and winning.

Before that we successfully litigated and ultimately settled an international tax fraud/money laundering scheme with parallel proceedings in US District Court in Los Angeles and Sonoma County, CA Superior Court saving our clients $17 million.  See, O’Hagin’s, Inc., et al. v. Bradley A. Patterson, et al., Case No. 8:16-cv-00716-DOC-JEM (U.S. District Court for the Central District of CA); O’Hagin’s, Inc. vs. Harry T. O’Hagin, Case No. SCV-238447 – Related Cases: SCV-252696, SCV-251296, SCV-254711, Superior Court of the State of California County of Sonoma; A. Peter Trombetta vs. Bradley A. Patterson, et al., Case No. SCV-263398, Superior Court of California, County of Sonoma; and, Trombetta vs. Patterson, Case No. A158897, In the Court of Appeal of the State of California for the First Appellate District, Division Three.

In Meri Nishiuchi v. Darwin Ting, et al.: Two successful prosecutions of (1) fraud/breach of fiduciary duty by the Tings, resulting in an original judgment for our client of $9.2 million, including attorneys’ fees of $2.7 million, affirmed by the California Court of Appeals. (2) In a related matter we successfully prosecuted the transferees of $2.5 million from the Tings, winning a judgment now worth more than $4 million.

In Meri Nishiuchi v. Darwin Ting, et al., William A. Cohan, Brad Nakase and Gabriel Cohan represented plaintiff Meri Nishiuchi, a limited partner acting on behalf of Atia Co., LP, a limited partnership, in a derivative action against the general partner, defendant Ting, for breach of fiduciary duty and an accounting.  Plaintiff challenged the general partner’s unpaid  loans to himself from the partnership’s funds, credit card charges on the partnership’s credit cards for personal expenses, an unauthorized bonus as well as unauthorized annual management fees in direct violation of the partnership agreement, and improper self-dealing of the general partner in connection with the partnership’s real estate assets, including a $3.6 million “kickback” on the sale of a shopping center owned by the partnership.

The case against Darwin Ting, et al. was successfully litigated before the Superior Court of Orange County, Judge Derek W. Hunt, who awarded disgorgement of $6,620,179 of misappropriated partnership funds, plus prejudgment interest of $2,399,845 and costs of $118,562, for a total award of $9,138,595 after a trial to the bench. Judge Hunt was affirmed on appeal by the Court of Appeals of the State of California, Fourth Appellate District, Division Three.

On June 5, 2015, the Court of Appeals determined that the trial court’s factual findings were supported by “abundant substantial evidence” and that the trial court properly awarded $3.6 million in disgorgement for the “kickback” on the sale of the shopping center.  Noting that the purchaser of the shopping center originally offered $31.1 million in February of 2011, but paid only $27.5 million in August 2011, the trial court found “by weight and strong probability of logical inference that this price change is explained by [Defendant] having taken a kickback.”  Nishiuchi v. Ting Appeals Ct Decision. On September 22, 2015, in the related case of Meri Nishiuchi v. Patricia Ting et al., the Superior Court of Orange County, Judge David Chaffee entered judgment against defendants awarding damages of $2,000,100 with prejudgment interest in the amount of $446,690, for a total of $2,446,790 for Ms. Ting’s (who is Darwin Ting’s daughter): (1) aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty; (2) fraudulent transfers; and, (3) constructive fraudulent transfers.  Judge Chaffee also awarded disgorgement of $446,555 from Ms. Ting’s husband, Michael Lee, and prejudgment interest in the amount of $127,640.30 for a total of $574,195.30. The trial court found that Patricia Ting and Mr. Lee improperly secreted assets from plaintiff to frustrate her collection efforts to enforce and collect the $9 million judgment entered against Darwin Ting. Nishiuchi v. Patricia Ting Statement of Decision

Martensen v. Koch, 301 F. R. D. 562 (D.Colo. 2014): We defended our client Kirby Martensen against a $100 million lawsuit brought against him by his former employer Oxbow Corporation and filed a suit on Martensen’s behalf against one of the notorious Koch Brothers who made the groundless accusations. After we obtained an order–affirmed on appeal–invalidating Mr. Koch’s claims of attorney-client privilege by establishing that Koch utilized his attorneys (at one point the court noted Koch had 14 lawyers opposing the 3 of us) to plan and execute his scheme to falsely imprison Martensen, Koch and Oxbow agreed to dismiss all claims against Martensen and entered into a confidential settlement to avoid further embarrassment Martensen v. Koch 301 FRD 562.

Consult A Business Lawyer For Free

Our litigators are available by appointment for initial consultations. At William A. Cohan, P.C., we also offer our initial consultations free of charge. Call us at 442-437-1729. You can also send a message through our website to schedule your free appointment. We look forward to serving you.