Texas Business Court Asserts Jurisdiction Over Employee Raiding Case

The Texas Business Court is further defining its role in resolving high-stakes corporate conflicts, as Craig Duewall of Greenberg Traurig writes in a recent article on the firm’s website.

In a February 2026 decision in Alamo Title Company v. WFG National Title Company of Texas, LLC, Judge Stacy Rogers Sharp of the Fourth Division confirmed that the court has the authority to hear a case involving “employee raiding” and the theft of sensitive data like payroll information and client lists.

By denying a motion to remand to a lower court, the judge provided a clearer roadmap for how this specialized judiciary evaluates both the $5 million financial threshold and the specific legal topics required for a case to qualify for its docket under Chapter 25A of the Texas Government Code.

Alamo Title sued WFG National Title in Bexar County district court, alleging that WFG, aided by Alamo President Edward Hall, orchestrated a scheme to poach employees and misappropriate customer lists, client files, and compensation data. Alamo asserted tortious interference, civil conspiracy, and aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty.

WFG moved the case to the Texas Business Court. Alamo moved to remand, arguing the Business Court lacked jurisdiction.

The Business Court upheld jurisdiction on two independent grounds. First, Alamo’s allegations that WFG aided Hall in breaching fiduciary duties satisfied the managerial-official prong. The court held that a standalone trade secret claim was unnecessary. Because the pleading repeatedly referenced misappropriated confidential information, it met the intellectual property prong’s broad “relating to” standard.

In respect to the amount in play, once WFG’s removal notice pled over $5 million, the burden shifted to Alamo. Alamo’s $4.7 million in disclosed 2025 damages, combined with ongoing losses, reputational harm, and its refusal to stipulate it would not seek more than $5 million, defeated remand. Jurisdiction extended to the entire lawsuit.

Counsel should proactively designate the Texas Business Court as the venue to avoid jurisdictional disputes in c-suite and key-employee agreements, particularly where employees access sensitive data. In M&A due diligence, assess target exposure from executive departures or data transfers that could trigger Business Court jurisdiction.

In litigation, advise clients that informal pleading references to confidential information may suffice to establish intellectual property jurisdiction. Most critically, parties opposing removal must stipulate a damages cap below $5 million early.

Claims of ongoing or incalculable losses, including reputational harm, will undermine remand arguments. Future damages count toward the jurisdictional threshold.