Both sides in this case attack by mandamus petitions an appeal bond set after the trial court's judgment against two of Longview Energy's company directors who allegedly used proprietary information to buy mineral leases that Longview was trying to purchase. The principal issues are (1) whether disgorged profits are compensatory damages for calculating a bond to supersede the judgment; (2) whether the appeals court erred by calculating the bond at $25 million, based on the judgment as a whole and not on individual defendants; and (3) whether the trial court by post-judgment discovery order properly compelled defendants to file monthly reports on assets and proceeds from the disputed leases. Longview sued the directors, Huff and D'Angelo, and their related companies, after recruiting them as investors in the planned lease purchase. In the trial court Longview got judgment for almost $100 million and a constructive trust on the disputed property and mineral rights. The trial court ordered supersedeas bonds against defendants up to $25 million, to be posted by each. The appeals court reversed the trial court's decision to impose an appeal bond against individual defendants but affirmed the ruling that disgorged profits are compensatory damages for calculating the appeal bond.

In this appeal, involving allegations that directors breached fiduciary duties by usurping a corporate opportunity to invest in shale property the company was considering, principal issues are (1) whether Longview pleaded its claim that the directors competed with it without Longview's informed consent and, if not, whether the trial court properly submitted a liability question based on the competition claim; (2) whether the appeals court erred in applying Delaware corporate-opportunity law by recognizing a director's loyalty may be breached by competing against the company without authorization; and (3) whether sufficient evidence supported Longview had an interest or expectancy in shale property it was considering for investment.