On September 28, 2026, Thompson Coe and a securities attorney asked the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas to throw out a civil suit accusing them of aiding an alleged carbon capture Ponzi scheme.

The summary judgment filing argues that a group of investor plaintiffs failed to plead facts showing the firm or the attorney knew the operators of the scheme were violating securities law. Without that allegation of scienter, the defendants wrote, the claims against them cannot stand.

What is the case about?

The suit targets legal assistance rendered to operators of a carbon capture business that allegedly paid early participants with money drawn from later investors rather than revenue from emissions reductions. Wells Fargo & Co. appears in the docket as a tracked entity, indicating that bank records tied to the ventures will form part of the record.

The motion is the first dispositive test in a case that asks whether outside legal advisers and securities counsel can face aiding-and-abetting liability for the collapse of a carbon capture enterprise marketed as both an environmental product and a financial return.

Why does this matter for carbon capture project finance?

Carbon capture developers raise capital on the prospect of selling verified CO2 storage credits to industrial emitters, oil and gas operators, and voluntary buyers. The economics rest on creditworthy counterparties, third-party verification of stored volumes, and clear title to the credits sold.

A confirmed fraud inside that chain forces lenders, verifiers, and offtakers to reweight due diligence on developer principals, on counsel certifications, and on the chain of custody for the credits themselves. The risk premium for legitimate projects rises whenever a fraud case confirms that some operators never built the capture infrastructure they sold against.

What does this change for circular economy counsel?

Outside lawyers signing off on private offerings of carbon capture equity, credit, and tax-credit transfers now face a documented record of secondary liability suits tied to alleged fraudulent projects. Law firms that advise capture developers will need to refresh engagement letters, due diligence workplans, and disclosure certifications for each project before issuing opinions relied on by investors.

The Texas filing is the leading edge of that exposure. A grant of the motion narrows the field of plaintiffs who can reach outside counsel after a project collapse. A denial opens discovery into the firm's internal communications about the operators, the projects, and the marketed returns.

Either ruling resets the standard outside counsel must meet when they certify a carbon capture offering. The next milestone is the court's ruling on the motion, followed by any appeal to the Fifth Circuit that locks the standard in for future Texas filings.