As the Texas Business Court prepares to enter its third year, legal experts say one case really stands out as an exemplar for the new commercial litigation system’s potential: Dallas Mavericks v. Dallas Stars.
Texas business litigation expert Ben Barnes, in an interview with The Texas Lawbook, said the business court judge’s trial order in the fight between Dallas’ sports franchises shows the court’s ability to compress complex, high-stakes commercial disputes when the circumstances demand it.
The interview comes shortly after Gov. Greg Abbott’s decision last week to reappoint all 10 judges to new two-year terms. Barnes said the move “provides important continuity” to the young court, but he noted that he does not “have a strong view that the terms must be longer” than two years.
In the interview, Barnes, who is managing partner of the Dallas office of Dowd Bennett, discusses his biggest gripes and praises for the new Texas Business Court, the requirement that Business Court judges must issue written rulings and emerging trends from its first two years.
Texas Lawbook: What were your initial expectations of the Texas Business Courts when it was first proposed and what are your thoughts now after nearly two years of operations?
Ben Barnes: When the Business Court was first announced, many of us in the commercial litigation bar hoped it would offer an efficient forum for complex disputes. The judges’ subject-matter expertise was appealing, but so was the court’s institutional capacity to give those disputes sustained attention.
Texas trial judges carry extraordinarily broad dockets in our courts of general jurisdiction. A district or county court judge may move in the same day from a dispute over medical-record discovery in a personal-injury case to a fight over redactions in corporate board minutes. Business Court judges can concentrate on complicated contracts, corporate structures, and discovery disputes without constantly shifting among unrelated subject areas. Complex commercial cases often require that level of sustained attention.
So far, the court has delivered on its promises. The judges approach business disputes expecting complexity and devote the time and resources needed to address them carefully.
Lawbook:What have been the biggest surprises so far?
Barnes: The biggest surprise has been less about any particular ruling and more about how quickly Texas’s broader corporate-home strategy has gained momentum.
When the court opened, I believed Texas would eventually compete directly with Delaware — not only as a preferred corporate home, but also as the jurisdiction supplying corporate-governance standards. I expected that shift to unfold over five or ten years as companies gradually relocated or reincorporated here.
That happened much faster than I expected. During the court’s first year, the Legislature codified the business judgment rule and adopted additional procedural protections governing derivative litigation and shareholder proposals. At the same time, companies including Chevron, Realtor.com, TTEC, and SpaceX moved their headquarters or principal places of business to Texas, while Coinbase announced that it would leave Delaware and reincorporate in Texas.
Lawbook: Looking back since the Business Courts launched, what types of disputes are actually showing up on the docket? How does that mix compare to what you and your clients expected?
Barnes: The mix has largely matched expectations. High-dollar commercial contract disputes have dominated the docket, including cases involving energy agreements, real estate transactions, financing arrangements, promissory notes, purchase agreements, indemnification obligations, and other substantial commercial contracts. That should not surprise anyone. From the outset, the court’s jurisdiction extended beyond internal corporate affairs to qualifying commercial transactions and high-value contract disputes. Trade-secret and employee-mobility cases have also become a meaningful part of the docket since the Legislature expanded the court’s jurisdiction in 2025.
Corporate-governance disputes are appearing as well, but so far they have primarily involved closely held companies, partnerships, family businesses, and nonprofits—not the public-company shareholder litigation commonly associated with Delaware. When the court opened, many prominent companies headquartered in Texas remained incorporated elsewhere, particularly in Delaware, so there was little reason to expect an immediate wave of public-company derivative litigation. As more companies choose Texas not only as their operational headquarters but also as their legal domicile, that part of the docket may grow. Overall, the court is developing as a in the broad sense, not merely as a corporate-governance court.
Lawbook: What have you or your clients liked or disliked most about litigating in the Business Court so far (speed, expertise, predictability, etc.) and how is that shaping your strategy moving forward?
Barnes: What we and our clients have liked most is the court’s speed, predictability, and responsiveness. The judges manage their dockets actively, provide clear guidance, and make themselves available when a dispute requires prompt attention. Lawyers can generally obtain a hearing when they need one, which matters in complex cases involving expedited relief, difficult discovery issues, or business decisions that cannot remain unresolved for months.
The court’s willingness to identify and decide controlling legal issues early under Rule 166(g) has also proved valuable. Resolving a threshold question at the outset can narrow the case, focus discovery, and give the parties a clearer basis for evaluating risk and settlement. That approach encourages us to identify potentially dispositive legal issues earlier and structure our case strategy around presenting them to the court before the parties incur the full cost of discovery and trial preparation.
Lawbook: What is the most unexpected or “only in the Business Court” moment you’ve seen so far?
Barnes: I was not involved, but the Mavericks–Stars case stands out. With the parties’ agreement, the court initially substituted an accelerated merits trial for a temporary-injunction proceeding and set trial roughly three months after the case was filed. Even though the schedule later changed, the initial order illustrated the court’s ability to compress a complex, high-stakes commercial dispute when the circumstances require it.
Lawbook: What has the impact been of the requirement that the Business Court must issue written rulings?
Barnes: The written-opinion requirement may prove to be one of the court’s most important features. Texas trial courts frequently decide significant procedural and substantive issues that never produce a written appellate opinion unless a party seeks mandamus relief or the dispute reaches a final appeal. As a result, lawyers and judges often confront recurring questions without much written guidance.
The Business Court has begun to fill that gap. Its opinions provide guidance on jurisdiction, removal, early resolution of controlling legal issues, discovery, temporary relief, contract interpretation, and corporate governance. That growing body of law gives lawyers a clearer basis for advising clients, evaluating risk, and shaping litigation strategy. It also promotes greater consistency and predictability across cases.
The court has operated for less than two years, so its jurisprudence remains in an early stage. Even so, practitioners already benefit from written decisions on issues that previously might have been resolved only through an oral ruling or a brief docket entry. Over time, those opinions should help develop a more coherent and accessible body of Texas commercial law.
Lawbook: What are the latest developments on the lawsuits challenging the constitutionality of the Business Court? Are all of those resolved? Do you think more such challenges will percolate?
Barnes: To my knowledge, Brown v. Exxon Mobil produced the first direct constitutional challenge to the Business Court. Brown challenged both the court’s geographic structure and the appointment of its judges. The Business Court remanded the case on statutory jurisdictional grounds, however, and never reached those arguments. Because the Legislature gave the Texas Supreme Court exclusive original jurisdiction over constitutional challenges to the Business Court, Brown ended without producing a definitive ruling on the court’s constitutionality.
I expect another party to raise the issue, particularly in a case that clearly falls within the court’s jurisdiction and therefore cannot be resolved through remand. That party would need to present the challenge directly to the Texas Supreme Court. As Brad Hubbard and I wrote in these pages, I do not expect the challenge ultimately to succeed: the Texas Constitution and longstanding precedent give the Legislature broad authority to create specialized statutory courts, and the Supreme Court recently rejected similar structural objections to the Fifteenth Court of Appeals. But until the Supreme Court addresses the Business Court itself, someone will likely test the question again.
Lawbook: Has it seemed to make much of a difference that there is not dedicated courtroom space for the Business Court? If not, what impact do you think that will have on lawmakers’ appetite to fund a Business Court courthouse?
Barnes: The lack of dedicated courtroom space has not materially affected the court’s day-to-day work, apart from the additional planning required for jury trials. The Eleventh Division holds hearings in the historic courtrooms used by the First and Fourteenth Courts of Appeals in Houston. In Dallas, Judge Whitehill has established an excellent conference center near SMU that can host any proceeding short of a jury trial, while Judge Bouressa holds hearings at the Collin County Courthouse. Judges Stagner and Bullard have also arranged to use facilities at Texas A&M. Those solutions reflect the court’s flexibility and have allowed it to function effectively without a permanent courthouse.
Jury trials in the Business Court require more advance coordination with county officials, but I do not foresee serious problems given how adaptable the court has been. The success of the current arrangements may reduce lawmakers’ sense of urgency about funding dedicated facilities. Over time, however, permanent space would simplify jury-trial logistics, provide greater consistency for parties and the public, and reinforce the court’s identity as a statewide institution.
Lawbook: Talk a little about the two-year term for the judges. All ten judges have now been reappointed. Should their terms be longer?
Barnes: The governor’s decision to reappoint all ten judges provides important continuity. The court is still developing its procedures and body of law, and many important cases remain pending.
I do not have a strong view that the terms must be longer. Two years gives the governor and the state an opportunity to assess how the court is working during its early years. On the other hand, frequent turnover could make it harder for the court to develop the experience and consistency that justified creating a specialized business court in the first place. The length of the term matters less than keeping strong judges in place long enough to provide continuity.
Lawbook: How disruptive will it be if judges involved in significant active matters are not reappointed? How is that working out?
Barnes: A change in judges can disrupt any significant case, particularly when the departing judge has spent substantial time learning the facts, managing discovery, and resolving difficult legal issues. But that problem is not unique to the Business Court. It also arises in federal and state district courts when judges retire, leave the bench, or lose elections. The successor judge reviews the record and moves the case forward.
The practical impact will depend mostly on timing. A reassignment shortly before trial could create real inefficiency, while a transition earlier in the case may make little difference. The key will be managing those transitions carefully.
Lawbook: There’s been a big jump between Year 1 and Year 2 in the number of cases being filed in the Business Court. Do you think docket equalization measures have been effective in managing that? And also, where is the tipping point where we see time to resolution in the Business Court start to look more like time to resolution in the district courts? Is that a concern?
Barnes: Docket equalization appears to be working. The court is reassigning cases across divisions, which helps balance the judges’ caseloads. Even as the court gets busier, each Business Court judge still handles far fewer matters than a state district judge.
It remains to be seen whether the court will reach a particular tipping point. The best indicators will be whether parties can still obtain prompt hearings and whether motion practice and trial settings begin to slow. So far, the increase in filings has not materially affected hearing availability or case schedules.
Lawbook: The legislature will be back in session this year, many of the divisions remain unfunded, do you think lawmakers will address that this term?
Barnes: I was impressed that the Legislature acted quickly in 2025 to address lessons from the court’s first year. I have no inside knowledge about the next session, but Texas’s growing success as a corporate home has to be getting lawmakers’ attention. I would expect continued support for the court to have some momentum, although funding all six remaining divisions at once may present a separate question. The court currently operates only five of its eleven divisions.
If funding presents the obstacle, the Legislature could consider allowing judges in existing divisions, where caseloads permit, to also cover cases filed in other regions. Those judges could use their current facilities or local courthouses. That approach would resemble the temporary cross-district assignments used in the federal system and could expand statewide access without immediately funding a separate judge and courthouse operation in every division.
Lawbook: As far as day-to-day operations of the Business Court go, what have you observed? Is it functioning as intended? Are there ways that could be improved?
Barnes: From a day-to-day standpoint, the court is functioning as intended. The judges and staff communicate clearly, and the court has managed its growing docket without noticeable disruption.
Lawbook: What’s your biggest praise and your biggest gripe about the Business Court?
Barnes: My biggest praise is that the judges learn the cases. In a complex commercial dispute, it matters when the court understands the contractual framework, the procedural history, and the practical stakes before an issue reaches a hearing.
My biggest gripe concerns discovery. The court’s preference for resolving discovery disputes informally can work well when both sides act reasonably. When one party is recalcitrant, however, delay in obtaining a formal ruling can reward obstruction and make it harder to create a clean record for review. I would favor a greater willingness to rule once informal efforts have failed.
Lawbook: If Texas lawmakers could grant you one wish as it relates to the Business Court this session, what would you ask for?
Barnes: My one wish would be to give the court enough judges and staff to preserve what has worked during its first two years. The court’s early success depends in part on judges and staff having enough capacity to manage complex cases closely. The Legislature should address that need before growing caseloads begin to affect the court’s performance.
Lawbook: What have you learned about its motion practice and case management, which seemed a selling point for its creation? For example, the Business Court’s appetite for early dispositive motions, evidentiary hearings or aggressive scheduling orders in complex cases?
Barnes: The court has shown a meaningful appetite for identifying controlling legal issues early under Rule 166(g), which can narrow discovery or materially reshape a case before the parties incur its full cost. It has also shown a willingness to impose aggressive schedules when circumstances warrant, as illustrated by the initial trial setting in the Mavericks–Stars dispute.
Lawbook: How are judges in the Business Court approaching requests for injunctive or expedited relief in deal litigation or non-compete, trade secret and IP-type disputes, especially when timing can affect whether a transaction closes?
Barnes: I have not handled one of these requests personally in the Business Court, but its early decisions suggest the court can address them on an expedited basis. Safelease and Galderma also show that the judges will engage closely with the evidence and tailor relief to the claims actually supported, rather than treat urgency as a reason to grant an overbroad injunction.
Lawbook: Have you noticed any emerging trends in how the court deals with contract-interpretation issues in large commercial or M&A agreements, such as earn-outs or fraud carve-outs?
Barnes: The clearest trend is a textualist approach. The court’s early decisions reflect a focus on enforcing statutes and contracts as written. The case law on specific provisions such as earn-outs and fraud carve-outs is still developing, but the broader message is already clear: the court will start with the text.
Lawbook: To what extent are parties taking advantage of the ability to funnel complex matters to Texas by contract?
Barnes: I am aware of a number of sophisticated companies that now include Business Court forum-selection clauses in their agreements. For disputes that otherwise fall within the court’s jurisdiction, those provisions can give the parties greater predictability about where and how a future case will be heard. I expect that trend to continue as the court becomes more established and its jurisdiction and procedures become more predictable.
Lawbook: What are the biggest unresolved questions (procedural, jurisdictional, etc.) that you and your clients are still waiting for the court to clarify? Are there any cases on tap that you think are most likely to produce some answers on that front?
Barnes: Many of the first-generation jurisdictional questions have now been answered. The harder questions involve the outer boundaries of the court’s expanded jurisdiction. We are still waiting for more guidance on how closely a dispute must relate to intellectual property or trade secrets, how far supplemental jurisdiction extends once those claims enter a case, and what qualifies as a “qualified transaction” when several agreements, contingent payments, or a master agreement and later purchase orders form the basis of the dispute.
Several cases have begun to mark those boundaries. Alamo Title addressed the new intellectual-property provision even without a standalone trade-secret claim. Atlas, Yuan, and Clean-Co illustrate the developing questions surrounding qualified transactions, related agreements, and aggregation. I do not think one case will answer all of these questions. The law will likely develop incrementally, with the Fifteenth Court eventually providing more uniform guidance as those rulings reach appeal.
Ben Barnes is the managing partner of the Dallas office of Dowd Bennett. He is the author of a popular blog that tracks actions by the Texas Business Courts. He is also an officer in the U.S. Marine Corps Reserves.