A lawsuit filed more than three years ago arising from adispute over a credit union to bank charter change attempt is stilldragging on through the Texas courts and promising depositions ofmany involved in the charter change business.

The case stems from the now 21,000-member $169 million FirstBasin Credit Union's attempt to change to a mutual bank charter in2007.

The attempt failed after some members objected and founded anorganization, Save First Basin, to oppose the charter change.

The group had gotten help from National Center for Member Trustin its efforts as well and, in the end, the credit union stoppedthe balloting, alleging that disruption from the opposing side hadprevented it from completing the process.

Specifically, the credit union alleged that someone had calledup members and warned them that if they voted for the conversionthey would lose money on deposit at the CU. Writing in an undatedletter to members about the balloting interruption, First Basin CEOShem Culpepper explained the CU's concerns.

It “has come to our attention that our members have beenreceiving calls telling them that if they don't vote against theconversion proposal, they will lose their money on deposit at FirstBasin and their accounts will be closed," Culpepper wrote.

"This is absolutely false.... If you were contacted byindividuals urging you to vote no and making similar types ofclaims, please contact us immediately so that we may ensure yourrights were not violated," he added.

Save First Basin's supporters denied there had been anywrongdoing, but the Odessa, Texas-headquartered First Basin sued in2008 in the District Court of Ector County, and the litigation hasbeen going on ever since.

“I don't think that I have anything to say about the pace of thecase except that the courts in Ector County grind very fine,” saidCalvin Hendrick, a lawyer for the defendants and now counterplaintiffs as the defendants have counter sued. “That and thenumber of lawyers hasn't helped.”

From the beginning, the case has involved a lot of discovery anddepositions, and Hendrick added that those kinds of cases tended todrag on a long time since every set of lawyers tended to bring itsown schedules for availability to depositions and that just tendedto make everything take longer.

“Half the time its getting everybody on the same page,” Hendricksaid, but he added that the case has taken a few turns since itsfirst filing.

First, and maybe most important, the credit union dropped thecase against all the individual Save First Basin supporters, a movethat Hendrick attributed to the credit union not wanting to gobefore a jury suing its own members.

At the same time, the credit union added the Texas Credit UnionLeague to the suit, alleging that the league had helped the SaveFirst Basin group even though it had been saying that it was nottaking a position on the charter change.

After the changes, the remaining defendants are the Texas CreditUnion League, the National Center for Member Trust and the 45,000member, $400 million Self Help Credit Union headquartered in Raleigh-Durham, N.C.

According to court filings, the credit union is arguing, amongother things, that the three organizations communicated andcooperated among themselves in an effort to oppose the First Basincharter change, including recruiting others to oppose theconversion, preparing communications and media releases for theSave First Basin group and raising funds to pay for the group'swebsite.

For their part, the defendants are asserting that they had aright to communicate with each other about the charter change andoppose it if they chose.

Hendrick could not predict when the case might go to trial asthe depositions and discovery are still going on and it’s unclearwhat remains at stake.

In a recent filing, the credit union included an analysis froman economist that put First Basin's economic damages from thefailed conversion attempt at between $11 million and $24 million,but that analysis presupposes that the measure failed because ofthe defendant’s opposition and not for another reason, which hasyet to be proved.

But the defendants have also just made a motion to have part ofthe case thrown out on the grounds that the credit union lacked thestanding to bring a defamation complaint.