← Back to bills and search results
2025 · Regular session · House bill
HB40
HB40 expands the kinds of large commercial disputes Texas's specialized business court can hear and updates its operating rules.
Official caption: Relating to the business court.
Official report lists House author(s): Landgraf, Meyer, Leach, Schofield, LaHood. This does not identify sponsors or amendment drafters.
Bill explanation published · Version and amendment review scope is stated below · Individual amendment records may not be separately annotated.
Bill highlights
Selected points from the published explanation. Follow each point to its source-linked context; conditions and limits may matter.
- HB40 expands the kinds of large commercial disputes Texas's specialized business court can hear and updates its operating rules.
- The $5 million rules are not a universal ticket into business court: A “qualified transaction” generally must involve at least $5 million in value; the relevant lawsuit generally must involve more than $5 million in dispute.
- Important exclusions remain: Medical-liability claims under Chapter 74, damages for bodily injury or death, legal malpractice, and specified consumer-transaction claims cannot enter even as related claims.
- The changes generally apply to suits begun on or after September 1, 2024.
- Final law, Sections 1–44 and 49–71.
What does it do?
HB40 expands the kinds of large commercial disputes Texas’s specialized business court can hear and updates its operating rules. It lowers several thresholds from $10 million to $5 million, adds intellectual-property and trade-secret cases, and provides a route for certain older lawsuits to transfer. Signed June 20, 2025, it took effect September 1, 2025—not immediately. Final law; official history.
The $5 million rules are not a universal ticket into business court. A “qualified transaction” generally must involve at least $5 million in value; the relevant lawsuit generally must involve more than $5 million in dispute. Specified bank, credit-union and savings-and-loan lending is excluded from that transaction definition. Covered commercial-contract cases, specified financial-law claims, intellectual-property disputes and trade-secret claims have their own requirements. Interest, statutory and punitive damages, penalties, attorney fees and court costs do not count toward the threshold; joined parties’ claims are totaled. Existing corporate-governance categories already generally used $5 million, and the existing exception for a publicly traded company in those categories remains. Arbitration-related proceedings are allowed when the underlying controversy includes a qualifying claim. Sections 43 and 45; Government Code Chapter 25A.
Important exclusions remain. Medical-liability claims under Chapter 74, damages for bodily injury or death, legal malpractice, and specified consumer-transaction claims cannot enter even as related claims. Other exclusions—including insurance, family, estate and certain government-related claims—can be overcome only through the court’s limited authority over related claims, which still requires every affected party and the judge to agree. The foreclosure exclusion is narrowed to property an individual owns when suit is filed. The law does not move ordinary consumer disputes into this specialized forum. Section 45.
The changes generally apply to suits begun on or after September 1, 2024. A separate provision, expiring September 1, 2035, allows earlier suits within the court’s jurisdiction to transfer on an agreed motion and the business court’s permission, under Supreme Court rules that prioritize difficult, long-running cases and available court capacity. For newer cases, agreed removal may occur while a case is pending; contested removal has specified 30-day deadlines, including a rule for pending temporary-injunction requests. Governing documents may establish venue in specified internal-business disputes. Appeals remain assigned to the Fifteenth Court of Appeals, subject to the Supreme Court’s authority. Sections 46–48, 56 and 72.
The act also:
- Removes the scheduled abolition of six additional divisions, but retains their legislative-funding condition; moves Montgomery County from the Second to Eleventh Division; and repeals the old 2026 appointment timetable. It does not itself open six funded courts.
- Extends numerous ordinary civil procedures to business court: appeals before final judgment, records, evidence, attachments, garnishment, receivers, injunctions, agreed special-judge referrals, mediation and arbitration. Arbitration procedure alone does not create additional jurisdiction. Related cases may be coordinated for pretrial proceedings when jurisdiction exists, not automatically transferred for trial.
- Changes judicial administration, visiting assignments, recusal, training and expense reimbursement; permits up to 30 days of paid preparation before a judge’s term; adds an administrative deputy and a Judicial Council seat; and strengthens annual workload reporting. It exempts the court from Chapter 37 appointment-list rules while extending other judicial protections and duties.
- Requires counties to provide comparable court facilities with state reimbursement at the calculated local market rate, limits required planning for future facilities to counties where the court operates, and provides state reimbursement for required security. It adds judicial compensation using statutory formulas, rather than fixing a single permanent dollar salary.
What changed along the way?
The filed proposal was broader: it included additional insurance and professional-malpractice categories, proposed removing consent for related claims, and included provisions tied to a constitutional amendment. The House substitute reorganized the bill and dropped several of those expansions. The final act does not enact that original package. Filed text; House substitute.
Three indexed floor amendments were adopted. Landgraf’s House amendment removed proposed language on fundamental transactions and unrestricted arbitration amounts, restored the Insurance Code exclusion, adjusted removal deadlines and compensation, preserved two-year judicial terms, and removed an older-case transfer provision. Johnson’s amendment made county facility reimbursement an entitlement and limited facilities-planning duties. Hughes’s Senate amendment removed the proposed 2030 expiration of the six additional divisions and changed salary-supplement wording to additional salary. Amendment index; Landgraf amendment; Johnson amendment; Hughes amendment.
The adopted Senate substitute retained consent for related claims and removed the House’s proposed extra judges for the First and Eleventh Divisions. Conference kept those Senate choices but restored the agreed-transfer option for pre-September 2024 cases, with special permission from both chambers to go beyond their passed versions. Both chambers adopted conference June 1: House 95–39, Senate 24–7. House-passed text; Senate text; adopted Senate amendments; conference report; House authorization; Senate authorization.
For the full amendment record, open the official amendment index.
Official bill versions
Compare the published text versions in the official text index. A change is not attributed to a specific amendment here without a verified record.
Who could benefit—and who could bear the costs?
Businesses with qualifying disputes could gain access to specialist judges, including some cases previously below the commercial threshold. Litigants still face eligibility, venue and litigation costs; faster or cheaper resolutions are potential benefits, not demonstrated outcomes of this review. Counties gain reimbursement protections but must accommodate required facilities and security. Judges receive additional compensation and administrative support.
The final fiscal note estimates $19.44 million in General Revenue costs over fiscal 2026–27, plus about $91,000 from other state funds, assuming six additional judges and 26 support positions. HB40 itself appropriates no money. The estimate is not proof that those divisions opened: the official court page checked October 31, 2026 lists only the First, Third, Fourth, Eighth and Eleventh as operational. The final pension analysis says the extra salary counts toward pension earnings but is not expected to have a material effect on the judicial retirement plan. Earlier $22.04 million and $23.60 million estimates describe different versions, not additional costs to add to the final estimate. Final fiscal note; final pension analysis; official operating divisions.
Official sources
- Bill history and latest recorded action
- Bill versions, analyses and fiscal notes
- Action history and votes
- Amendment index
Catalog report retrieved 2026-10-25. Check the official record for corrections or later changes.