Texas Business Court Approaches 1 Year Mark

As we approach the one-year mark of the opening of the Texas Business Courts, we share litigation trends and our firm’s experience in practicing law in the business courts. 

Since opening its doors on September 1, 2024, 10 judges across 5 active divisions have managed a total of 133 cases filed on their dockets.

Division	Number of Cases Filed
First Business Court Division (Dallas)	35
Third Business Court Division (Austin)	13
Fourth Business Court Division (San Antonio)	14
Eighth Business Court Division (Fort Worth)	13
Eleventh Business Court Division (Houston)	58

 

As expected, the Houston and Dallas Business Courts are the most active divisions. For this reason, Administrative Presiding Judge Dorfman has taken measures to “equalize dockets” among the five divisions to alleviate the load on its judges by reassigning cases to judges in other divisions to promote efficiency of the courts. These cases are not transferred – reassignment orders specifically state that the cases will remain in the division in which they were filed but will be presided over by a judge in another division.

Docket equalization may become standard at the Texas Business Court, especially after the court adds divisions for the state’s less populated metroplexes (El Paso, Midland, Lubbock, Corpus Christi, Tyler, and Beaumont) in September 2026. 

Jurisdictional Hurdles 

An issue at the forefront of the court’s practice is jurisdiction. The Business Courts have concurrent general jurisdiction with the Texas state district courts if the case fits within one of the following categories:

 

• • • • • Any matter in which any of the involved parties is a publicly-traded company, regardless of the amount in controversy. 

• • • • • A matter in which the amount in controversy is over $5 million and the case is: (1) a derivative proceeding; (2) a corporate-governance or internal affairs action; (3) an action involving state or federal securities laws or regulations asserted against an organization, a controlling person or senior officer, an underwriter of issued securities, or the auditor of the organization; (4) an action brought by an organization or its owner if the action alleges an act or omission of an owner, controlling person, or senior officer in that person’s official capacity; (4) an action alleging that an owner, controlling person, or senior officer breached a duty to the organization; (6) an action seeking to hold an owner or governing person liable for an obligation of the organization; or (7) an action arising out of the Business Organizations Code.

• • • • • A matter in which the amount in controversy is $10 million and is (1) an action arising out of a “qualified transaction,” which means a transaction in which the consideration at issue is at least $10 million (other than one involving a loan or advance of money or credit by a bank or other financial institution); (2) an action involving a contract (besides an insurance contract) or subsequent agreement where the parties agreed that the Business Court would have jurisdiction; or (3) an action arising out of a violation of the Finance or Business and Commerce codes by an organization or officer acting on the organization’s behalf (excluding banks, credit unions, or savings and loans associations).

 

The Business Court has supplemental jurisdiction over any claim in a lawsuit if at least one other claim falls within the general jurisdiction of the Business Court and all parties agree to supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining claims. A party that does not consent to have the case heard in the Business Court must move to sever or otherwise object within 30 days after the later of: (1) the moving party’s appearance in the Business Court; or, (2) the filing of the first pleading or removal notice. If all parties do not agree, any related can be litigated concurrently in state district court. 

Despite these jurisdictional parameters, in a decision published February 21, 2025, the Fifteenth Court of Appeals (the Business Court’s appellate court), affirmed that cases commenced prior to September 1, 2024 cannot be removed to the Business Court. The term “commenced” has been held to mean the initiation of a suit as a whole. Changes in parties and claims have no impact on subject matter jurisdiction.

While the Court of Appeals acknowledged that its possible for a plaintiff to nonsuit a matter it filed before September 1, 2024 in order to refile the lawsuit in business court, the passage of time and limitations periods will make such gamesmanship difficult.

Experience of Practicing in Business Court

We are seeing the Business Court’s mission “to promote the orderly and efficient administration of justice” be upheld in practice. Judges, and their clerks, are quick to respond to motions, particularly discovery disputes, and appear to be actively engaged in the administration of their cases. Like most judges, Business Court judges expect parties’ compliance with the judge’s own specific Rules and well as the Business Court Local Rules, both of which parties and their counsel should become intimately familiar with when practicing in Business Court. Otherwise, they may find themselves submitting multiple iterations of the same motion.

As noted above, we are aware of case equalization transfers quickly after filing. Transferred cases appear to hold virtual hearings. 

Upcoming Changes to the Business Court

On June 1, 2025, the Texas Legislature passed House Bill 40 (“HB40”). If signed into law by Governor Abbott, HB40 will amend Texas Government Code Chapter 25A, the statute that established the Business Court, to make clarifying and procedural amendments to various Texas statutes. 

A few of the significant amendments in HB40 include:

• • • • • The amount in controversy lowered from $10 million to $5 million for suits arising under a “qualified transaction” and for certain actions arising out of a violation of the Finance Code or the Business & Commerce Code, among other claims. 

• • • • • The amount in controversy for the Business Court’s jurisdictional purposes is “the total amount of all joined parties’ claims.”

• • • • • The definition of “qualified transaction” is expanded to include a series of related transactions.

• • • • • The Business Court will now have jurisdiction over any action “arising out of a business, commercial or investment contract or transaction,” as opposed to any action “that arises out of a contract or commercial transaction,” in which the parties to the contract or transaction agreed that the Business Court has jurisdiction of the action.

• • • • • The Business Court’s jurisdiction will now include trade secret and intellectual property actions.

• • • • • The Business Court will have jurisdiction concurrent with district courts over actions to enforce an arbitration agreement, appoint an arbitrator, review an arbitral award and take other judicial actions relating to or in support of arbitration proceedings, so long as a claim included in the arbitration is within the Business Court’s jurisdiction and satisfies the required amount in controversy.

       

Unless vetoed by Governor Abbott, these changes will go into effect on September 1, 2025.