Strictly Business

The Business Court began operating on September 1, 2024, so today marks the end of the first month of its existence. Thus far, it’s looking like the Court is getting started with more of a trickle than a flood–likely a welcome development for the Judges of the new courts, and one that stands in stark contrast to the Fifteenth Court of Appeals, which had a hefty caseload transferred to it on the first day it was open.

Let’s open in the most lawyerly of fashions–with a disclaimer. Strictly Business, its author, his clients, and any organizations that might be affiliated with him are expressing no opinions on the facts or merits of any of these cases. As we try to make clear throughout, any “facts” set forth here are just the contention of the parties. (Surely no Plaintiff would ever stretch the truth in a Petition, right?) Because Strictly Business can’t know if the allegations set forward here are true, and because the author of Strictly Business likes not being sued, company names have been omitted. In the future, when we are dealing with opinions and decided cases, we promise to be bolder in our journalistic endeavors.

Some early takeaways:

• Oil and gas disputes are our current most frequent fliers.
• Dallas attorneys seem more bullish on the Business Court than our friends in other parts of the state–but, oddly, not in the Dallas Business Court.
• A month in, Beck Redden is the top dog in terms of number of (non-sealed) cases pending in the Business Court statewide.

Strictly Business pulled docket information from reSearchTX, which only showed nine cases pending in the Business Courts statewide. It’s entirely possible, for a variety of reasons, that these don’t reflect every single case pending in front of the Business Court. Some cases also appear to be sealed–which we assume is for a good reason–so we aren’t giving them publicity here. With those caveats, here’s what we know is out there in Dallas and Austin. More to come on Fort Worth, Houston, and San Antonio in a future post.

First Division – Dallas

No. 24-BC01B-0001

It wouldn’t really be a Texas Business Court if we didn’t get oil-and-gas cases early and often–even ones about oil and gas produced outside Texas.

Only the Petition is on file, and it’s factually sparse. Plaintiff says Defendants promised to deliver natural gas extracted from some acreage in New Mexico. It says Defendants didn’t do that, and then sent it a notice they were terminating the agreement. Plaintiff is represented by attorneys from the Houston office of Beck Redden, Defendants have not yet appeared in the case (a line you’ll be seeing a good bit in this post).

No. 24-BC01A-0002

This guaranty matter is, on the face of the complaint, about as straightforward as a guaranty claim can get. Debtor owed money to Plaintiff. Defendant promised to pay it. Defendant didn’t do that (or so Plaintiff claims).

The real eye-catcher here is the damages. The Defendant is an individual, not a corporation. Plaintiff is seeking to recover $270,191,752.00 from him–plus interest, fees, expenses, charges, indemnities, and “other obligations.” In laymen’s terms, that is approximately one of those vaults of gold coins Scrooge McDuck swam in in the opening of DuckTales. Plaintiffs are represented by attorneys from the Dallas office of Reed Smith. Defendant has yet to appear in the case.

Third Division – Austin

No. 24-BC03B-0001

A rare case from that most underrated of specialities–trench law. Plaintiff claims Defendants hired it to dig trenches to lay fiber optic cable, making a couple key representations: (1) Defendants would get the necessary easements; (2) site conditions allowed them to use a technique called “chain trenching,” which is apparently faster than the alternative; (3) Defendants would order the trench segments to be dug in sequence to avoid labor and equipment transport costs; and (4) Defendants would provide the right kind of conduit for the trenches.

This being a breach of contract case, you may not be surprised to learn Plaintiff claims that Defendants did not do those things. The conduits purportedly failed which forced Plaintiff to re-dig a trench, they were (allegedly) told to dig the trenches out of order, increasing costs, and generally things went south fast. Plaintiff, represented by Bell Nunnally, sues for multiple counts of breach of contract and fraudulent misrepresentation. Defendants are yet to appear.

No. 24-BC03A-0002

This breach of contract and tortious interference case arises out of an alleged joint venture between the Plaintiff and Defendant to “acquire and develop an innovative, first-of-its-kind gigawatt scale data center community.” Plaintiff contends that the project has a bright future, but acknowledges that it has faced setbacks that it characterizes as typical of any construction project.

The Petition claims that the Defendant is “looking for ways to manufacture grounds to remove Plaintiff as Manager.” Plaintiff claims that Defendant told customers, consultants, and government representatives that Plaintiff has been terminated as Manager and is no longer involved in the project.

Plaintiff is suing for breach of contract, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and seeking a declaratory judgment that it’s still the manager. It’s represented by attorneys out of Jackson Walker’s Dallas Office.