Texas Business Court: A Game-Changer in Corporate Governance?

The launch of the Texas Business Court in September 2024 signals a pivotal shift in corporate litigation. As the trend of “Dexit” gains momentum—where companies reconsider Delaware as their preferred state of incorporation—Texas is making a bold play to position itself as a serious contender. With its newly established Business Court, Texas aims to offer an alternative to Delaware’s Court of Chancery, which has long been the dominant forum for resolving high-stakes corporate disputes.

Recent high-profile cases, such as Tornetta v. Musk, which examined Elon Musk’s staggering $56 billion Tesla compensation package, have intensified scrutiny on Delaware’s corporate judiciary. Proponents argue that these cases highlight Delaware’s commitment to enforcing fiduciary duties, but critics see them as evidence of systemic weaknesses. To skeptics, the Business Court represents a fresh approach—one that prioritizes efficiency, neutrality, and adaptability.

The real question is whether Texas can successfully challenge Delaware’s long-standing dominance in corporate adjudication. My recent research explores this very issue, delving into key factors such as judicial independence, procedural efficiency, the role of juries, fee-shifting mechanisms, and the development of legal precedent. Whether the Business Court can emerge as a true rival to Delaware remains to be seen, but its establishment undeniably signals a shift in the competitive landscape of corporate law.

A well-functioning corporate judiciary requires a careful balance between judicial independence and accountability. Nowhere is this more critical than in cases involving fiduciary duties, where courts must navigate competing interests between corporate leadership, shareholders, and the entity itself. Delaware’s Court of Chancery has long set the benchmark in this area, largely due to its structure: judges serve 12-year terms, allowing them to develop deep expertise while remaining insulated from political pressures.

Texas, however, has opted for a different model in its newly established Business Court. Judges will serve only two-year terms, subject to potential reappointment. This design raises concerns about continuity, the ability to attract top-tier legal minds, and the risk of inconsistent rulings. A short tenure could make judges more susceptible to external pressures, undermining confidence in the court’s neutrality. Moreover, the frequent turnover could result in a lack of doctrinal consistency, making Texas a less predictable venue for corporate litigation.

To strengthen the Business Court’s long-term viability, Texas should consider structural reforms. Extending judicial terms would provide greater stability, while a transparent, merit-based reappointment process could help ensure that reappointments are based on legal acumen rather than political considerations. Additionally, forming an independent judicial selection committee and investing in ongoing corporate law education for judges would reinforce the court’s credibility. These measures would not only enhance judicial independence but also ensure that Texas fosters a business court with the expertise and consistency necessary to rival Delaware.

Delaware’s Court of Chancery is widely regarded as the gold standard for efficiency in corporate litigation. Its ability to resolve high-stakes disputes—such as merger injunctions—within weeks provides critical stability for both corporations and financial markets. One of the key factors behind this speed is its jury-free structure, allowing judges with deep corporate law expertise to decide cases swiftly and predictably.

Texas’ Business Court, on the other hand, introduces a different dynamic: the availability of jury trials. While juries serve as a constitutional safeguard, their inclusion in corporate litigation presents challenges. The selection process, deliberations, and increased likelihood of appeals stemming from jury verdicts could lead to protracted litigation and inconsistent outcomes. This unpredictability may make Texas a less attractive forum for businesses seeking swift and reliable resolutions.

The 1985 Pennzoil v. Texaco case underscores these concerns. A Texas jury awarded an unprecedented $10.53 billion verdict against Texaco, demonstrating the risks of jury-driven unpredictability in corporate disputes. While Texas must uphold the right to a jury trial, it can still take measures to enhance efficiency. A more refined jury selection process, judicial encouragement of bench trials in complex cases, bifurcated trials to separate legal and factual determinations, and the use of special masters or neutral experts could all mitigate the risk of prolonged and inconsistent litigation.

For Texas to compete with Delaware’s efficiency, procedural reforms are essential. The Court of Chancery has built its reputation on streamlined litigation, using summary judgments and expedited hearings to resolve cases quickly. If Texas’ Business Court wants to establish itself as a credible alternative, it must develop similar mechanisms to ensure that corporate disputes are handled with both speed and precision.

Delaware’s unparalleled influence in corporate law stems from its deep well of legal precedent, meticulously built over two centuries. This extensive case history offers businesses and their counsel a rare degree of predictability, allowing corporate actors to navigate legal risks with confidence. Texas, in contrast, is starting from scratch. With the Business Court’s infancy, the absence of a developed body of precedent could lead to inconsistent rulings, making it a less attractive forum—at least initially.

Several structural factors could slow the development of a stable and authoritative corporate law framework in Texas. First, the potential for jury trials may limit the frequency of detailed judicial opinions, which serve as the foundation for corporate legal precedent. Second, the short two-year terms for Business Court judges could disrupt continuity, resulting in a rotating bench that struggles to maintain doctrinal consistency. Third, the Business Court’s broader jurisdiction—encompassing various business disputes rather than focusing narrowly on corporate governance—could divert attention from the specialized jurisprudence needed to rival Delaware.

If Texas wants its Business Court to emerge as a serious alternative, it must take deliberate steps to build legal certainty. Judges should be encouraged to issue comprehensive written opinions in all cases, including those involving juries, to ensure the gradual accumulation of persuasive precedent. Additionally, the court should establish an efficient system for publishing and organizing rulings, making them easily accessible to legal practitioners. Specialized judicial training in corporate law and reconsidering the short judicial term limits could further bolster the court’s credibility. By proactively addressing these concerns, Texas can work toward developing a business court that offers not only efficiency but also the legal predictability that corporations seek.

Fee-shifting rules can significantly influence the landscape of corporate litigation, particularly in shareholder lawsuits. Delaware has taken a clear stance: it prohibits corporations from imposing fee-shifting bylaws that would force unsuccessful shareholder-plaintiffs to cover the company’s legal costs. This approach ensures that shareholders are not discouraged from bringing valid claims that hold corporate leaders accountable.

Texas, however, has not adopted a similar restriction, leaving the door open for companies to implement fee-shifting provisions that could deter litigation. While this could reduce frivolous lawsuits, it also risks shielding corporate misconduct by making it financially perilous for shareholders to challenge executives. Well-funded defendants could leverage fee-shifting rules to discourage even strong cases from moving forward. The recent Tornetta v. Musk decision underscores the importance of shareholder litigation in corporate governance—under more aggressive fee-shifting rules, such a case might never have made it to court.

To strike a fair balance, Texas should consider a nuanced approach. Possible reforms include limiting fee-shifting provisions to specific types of shareholder suits, capping liability in “loser pays” scenarios, implementing a judicial review process to assess whether fee-shifting is appropriate in individual cases, and encouraging alternative fee structures that reduce financial risk for plaintiffs. By crafting a policy that discourages meritless claims while preserving access to the courts for legitimate shareholder disputes, Texas can ensure that its Business Court remains both efficient and fair in fostering corporate accountability.

With the creation of the Texas Business Court, the Lone Star State is making an ambitious bid to challenge Delaware’s long-standing dominance in corporate adjudication. However, while Texas has positioned itself as an emerging player, a head-to-head comparison reveals substantial hurdles it must overcome before it can rival the efficiency, predictability, and sophistication of Delaware’s Court of Chancery—particularly in fiduciary duty litigation against corporate insiders.

Several key challenges stand in Texas’ way. First, Delaware’s judiciary has spent decades refining its expertise, with judges who specialize exclusively in corporate law and issue decisions without the unpredictability of jury trials. Texas, by contrast, must build judicial depth while managing the complexities that jury involvement introduces. Second, Delaware benefits from a vast and highly developed body of precedent, giving corporations confidence in the predictability of legal outcomes. The Business Court will need time to develop similar legal certainty. Finally, Texas must strike the right balance between promoting access to justice and discouraging frivolous shareholder suits, particularly as its stance on fee-shifting evolves.

The Texas Business Court has the potential to become a meaningful venue for corporate litigation, but this transformation will not happen overnight. Establishing institutional knowledge, refining judicial processes, and developing a robust body of case law will take years—if not decades. For now, Delaware remains the undisputed leader in corporate law, but Texas has made a strategic move that could, in time, reshape the corporate litigation landscape.

Back