Case summary — Credit Suisse AG v. Claymore Holdings, LLC, No. 05-24-01124-CV (Tex. App.—Dallas Oct. 21, 2025). You can read the full text of the opinion by clicking here.
The Fifth Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s award of prejudgment interest and rendered judgment for Credit Suisse for $0 in damages and $0 prejudgment interest, concluding that interest on a zero-dollar judgment is necessarily zero.
Procedural posture & parties
• Appellants: Credit Suisse AG, Cayman Islands Branch; Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC.
• Appellee: Claymore Holdings, LLC.
• Court: Court of Appeals, Fifth District of Texas at Dallas.
• Trial court: 134th Judicial District Court, Dallas County (Cause No. DC-13-07858).
• Opinion/Judgment date: Opinion filed Oct. 21, 2025; judgment entered Oct. 21, 2025.
Background
• The dispute has an extended procedural history (prior appeals and a Texas Supreme Court reversal are noted in the opinion). Relevant to this appeal: Claymore obtained settlements exceeding $53 million; a jury separately awarded Claymore $40 million against Credit Suisse. A prior panel had concluded settlement credits produced a negative damages number yielding a $0 judgment for Claymore and remanded only to address prejudgment interest under the revised damages calculation. On remand the trial court awarded $26,975,342 in prejudgment interest in a final judgment dated Sept. 20, 2024.
Issues presented
Whether the trial court erred by awarding substantial prejudgment interest to Claymore when, under the Court’s earlier damages-calculation ruling, Claymore’s final judgment on damages is zero dollars.
Holding
The Court of Appeals held that prejudgment interest on a zero-dollar judgment must itself be zero. The trial court’s prejudgment-interest award was therefore erroneous. The court reversed the trial-court final judgment and rendered judgment for Credit Suisse for $0 in damages and $0 in prejudgment interest. The appellants were awarded their appellate costs.
Reasoning
• The panel relied on horizontal stare decisis (the obligation of a panel to follow prior panel precedent of the same court) and the prior rulings in the case that produced a $0 damages judgment.
• Because the earlier legal rulings left Claymore with a zero-dollar damages award, any calculation of prejudgment interest based on that zero amount necessarily yields zero. Thus the trial court erred in awarding prejudgment interest in a positive amount.
• Given the disposition (rendering judgment for zero), the court declined to address the parties’ remaining contentions.
Disposition
• Reversed and rendered: final judgment reversed; rendered judgment for Credit Suisse for $0 damages and $0 prejudgment interest. Appellants recover costs of appeal.
The Girards Law Firm specializes in severe injury and wrongful death cases, especially those that involve birth injuries, brain damage, heart damage, spinal cord injuries, severe burns, commercial plane crashes and commercial trucking crashes nationwide, and especially in Texas, Arkansas and Oklahoma. James E. Girards is a private pilot licensed to fly single- and multi-engine aircraft in both visual and instrument conditions. Contact us at www.girardslaw.com by using the chat feature for more information.