The Texas Business Court is approaching its third year of operation. For companies litigating significant commercial disputes, whether Texas-based or headquartered elsewhere, the results we have seen in these first three years are worth examining. For businesses, the good news is that the Legislature has achieved what it sought to create: a specialized venue capable of resolving complex business disputes with speed, sophistication, and predictability. And as intended, the court presents a credible alternative to the Delaware Court of Chancery for commercial and corporate litigation.

Efficiency That Rivals Arbitration

The Business Court was designed to "streamline resolutions of business disputes" and promote the "orderly and efficient administration of justice." Legal scholars have long recognized that specialized business courts achieve these objectives through structural advantages: the involvement of a single, knowledgeable judge reduces the need for parties to continually re-familiarize different jurists with the facts of their case, and concentrated dockets allow for faster disposition. Research on commercial courts internationally confirms that cases historically requiring two to three years in general-jurisdiction courts can be resolved in a fraction of that time in specialized forums.

In practice, the Texas Business Court functions much like arbitration in terms of pace and focus. But it provides the added benefits of written opinions, appellate review through the dedicated Fifteenth Court of Appeals, transparency, robust discovery, and the ability to join multiple parties. Unlike arbitration, whose confidential decisions lack precedential value, the Business Court is busy generating a body of published authority that informs future transactions and disputes. For companies that value predictability and efficient resolution without sacrificing procedural safeguards, the combination is significant.

Judicial Quality and Stability

Legal commentators have consistently identified judicial expertise as among the principal benefits of specialized business courts: judges who consistently hear corporate and commercial disputes "develop expertise, experience, and knowledge, enabling [them] to perform [their] functions more proficiently, rapidly and confidently." The Texas Business Court bench exemplifies this principle. Every judge brings deep corporate, transactional, and appellate experience. Indeed, the legislation creating the courts requires at least ten years of business law experience for appointment.

Governor Abbott recently reappointed all ten judges for new two-year terms effective September 1, 2026, stating that the court "has resolved complex commercial disputes with unmatched speed and expertise" and that "hundreds of cases already filed, and scores resolved prove these judges fuel Texas' status as the economic engine of America." The retention of the full original bench signals institutional stability, as well as increasing sophistication and expertise with every matter brought before the courts.

A Growing Body of Meaningful Precedent

In less than two years, the Business Court has issued over 70 published opinions, and the pace is accelerating. The court issued 42 opinions in the first year, with filings nearly doubling in the second year. In its first fiscal year alone, the court processed 185 cases, and 141 new cases were filed in just the first six months of year two. This output is building a coherent body of commercial law for Texas that begins to approach the depth of guidance historically associated with Delaware's Court of Chancery. As scholars have noted, "the requirement of written trial-level opinions develops an extensive, internally coherent, and well-reasoned body of state commercial case law." It is precisely this feature that has given the Delaware Chancery Court its competitive edge for decades. The Texas Business Court, by statute, must issue written opinions on dispositive rulings and on issues "important to the jurisprudence of the state." Among the critical issues the courts have addressed:

• Jurisdiction. The court has established a detailed burden-shifting framework for removal and remand disputes. In C Ten 31 LLC v. Tarbox, 2025 Tex. Bus. 1 (3d Div.), the court addressed how the amount in controversy is determined when a petition is silent, establishing that removal-notice pleadings control absent evidence of fraud or a readily established different amount. In Atlas IDF, LP v. Nexpoint Real Estate Partners, LLC, 2025 Tex. Bus. 16 (1st Div.), the court broadly interpreted the term "qualified transaction,” the court’s most common jurisdictional hook, and held that promissory note interest forming a principal part of a plaintiff's damages may be included in the amount in controversy.
• Contract interpretation. The courts have applied freedom-of-contract principles with rigor and clarity. In Primexx Energy Opportunity Fund, LP v. Primexx Energy Corp., 2025 Tex. Bus. 9 (1st Div.), the court construed a partnership agreement's modified fiduciary duties, holding that while partners have wide latitude to expand or limit their obligations, duties of loyalty and care cannot be eliminated entirely. In Marathon Oil Co. v. Mercuria Energy America, LLC, 2025 Tex. Bus. 36 (11th Div.), the court synthesized competing buyer and seller transaction confirmations into a single integrated agreement, and in City Choice Group, LLC v. TMC Grand Blvd Land Co., LLC, 2025 Tex. Bus. 45 (11th Div.), the court applied a substantial-compliance standard to contractual notice requirements, holding that a deviation from prescribed notice conditions did not defeat the notice where it caused no prejudice.
• Limitations. In Riverside Strategic Capital Fund I v. CLG Investments, LLC, 2025 Tex. Bus. 35 (1st Div.), the court held that inquiry notice is the legal equivalent of knowledge of the causes of action, barring fraud claims where the plaintiff was aware of facts more than four years prior to filing that, if pursued, would have led to discovery of the fraud. The court also addressed the standard for raising a fact question on fraudulent concealment, providing important guidance on when the discovery rule may toll limitations in securities and investment disputes.

• Corporate veil-piercing and governance. In Lensabl, Inc. v. RBH SPE One, LLC, 2025 Tex. Bus. 44 (8th Div.), the court distinguished Texas and Delaware veil-piercing standards, applying Texas law despite a Delaware choice-of-law provision and finding that the plaintiff's "conclusory allegations patterned after Delaware veil-piercing principles" were insufficient under Texas's substantially higher standard. In Tall v. Vanderhoef, 2025 Tex. Bus. 15 (8th Div.), the court analyzed the enforceability of contractual fiduciary-duty disclaimers in an LLC context, holding that expressly disclaimed fiduciary duties could not support a standalone breach-of-fiduciary-duty claim.

For businesses structuring transactions or drafting dispute-resolution clauses, this emerging jurisprudence provides something Texas previously lacked in complex commercial matters: a meaningful degree of predictability regarding how a court will construe commercial agreements and resolve threshold legal questions. As the Indiana Law Review noted in its survey of business court programs nationwide, "the common law predictability that business courts provide offers a great incentive for businesses to incorporate or complete transactions within a state that has established business courts."

Gray Reed's Experience in the Business Court

Gray Reed has maintained an active Business Court practice since the court opened. The firm filed among the first cases in the Houston Division and has represented numerous clients across the court's procedural framework in industries including energy, real estate, and commercial transactions.

Looking Ahead