This however does not diminish his authority to settle regular, ordinary lawsuits. See, e.g., Executive Condominiums, Inc. v. State, 764 S.W.2d 899 (Tex.App. — Corpus Christi 1989, writ denied); Bullock v. Texas Skating Assoc., 583 S.W.2d 888 (Tex.Civ.App. — Austin 1979, writ ref'd n.r.e.). However, there is a vast difference between settling for less than all the state is arguably entitled, or deciding whether to appeal an adverse judgment, and agreeing to a judgment that rewrites a statute because the Attorney General thinks that the statute is unconstitutional.

That is, the section has not been construed to limit the Attorney General's constitutional authority to propose, negotiate, and execute settlement agreements on behalf of the State of Texas — despite arguments to the contrary. See Terrazas, 829 S.W.2d at 728 n. 5, 733 n. 5 (concurring opinions of Justice Gonzalez and Cornyn); see also Executive Condominiums, Inc. v. State, 764 S.W.2d 899, 902 (Corpus Christi 1989, writ denied) (rejecting argument that section 402.004 prevented Attorney General from compromising and settling claims on behalf of the state). B. Who Must Consent to the Settlement?

Generally, under the Texas Securities Act or common law fraud, statements of the law are not actionable as false representations of fact because both parties are deemed to have equal access to and knowledge of the law. See Fina Supply, Inc. v. Abilene Nat'l Bank, 726 S.W.2d 537, 540 (Tex. 1987); Executive Condominiums, Inc. v. State, 764 S.W.2d 899, 902 (Tex.App. 1989, writ denied); see also Askew v. Smith, 246 S.W.2d 920, 922 (Tex.Civ.App. 1952, no writ). There are exceptions when the defendant has superior knowledge and uses it to mislead the plaintiff, or when a fiduciary relationship exists between the parties. See Fina Supply, Inc., 726 S.W.2d at 540; Askew, 246 S.W.2d at 923.

However, the threat to institute a civil suit or even the actual institution of a suit does not, as a matter of law, constitute duress. Cont'l Cas. Co. v. Huizar, 740 S.W.2d 429, 430 (Tex. 1987); Executive Condos., Inc. v. State, 764 S.W.2d 899, 903 (Tex.App.-Corpus Christi 1989, writ. denied). The rule remains in force even if the person threatened does not have the financial wherewithal to defend against the suit.

At the outset, we recognize that a statement of facts from a prior trial may properly be considered as summary judgment evidence. Austin Bldg. Co. v. Nat'l Union Fire Ins. Co., 432 S.W.2d 697, 698-99 (Tex. 1968); Executive Condominiums, Inc. v. State, 764 S.W.2d 899, 901 (Tex.App. — Corpus Christi 1989, writ denied); Villarreal v. Laredo Nat'l Bank, 677 S.W.2d 600, 605 (Tex.App. — San Antonio 1984, writ ref'd n.r.e.). We also recognize that in each of these cases the offered testimony was in fact from the same case between the same parties. Yet, we do not believe that these cases stand for allowing prior testimony only if it is from the same case between the same parties. None of these cases reach such a conclusion.

A threat to sue on a past due note and foreclose the lien is neither fraud nor duress. Ulmer v. Ulmer, 139 Tex. 326, 162 S.W.2d 944, 947 (1942); see also Executive Condominiums, Inc. v. State, 764 S.W.2d 899, 903 (Tex.App. — Corpus Christi 1989, writ denied). Thus, the Bank's acceleration and foreclosure sale was not fraud or duress.