On Sept. 4, 2026, in Parker v. Lynzara-Austin Real Estate Management, LLC, 2026 Tex. Bus. 62, Judge Stacy Rogers Sharp addressed whether parties could bypass an existing district court receivership by filing a new action in the Texas Business Court. The Fourth Division concluded that they could not.

Background: A Long-Running Business Dispute

The case arose from a breakdown in a business relationship involving the Tapatio Springs Golf Resort and related real estate developments in Kendall County. The underlying dispute between John J. Parker and Michael Shalit began in 2012. By 2018, the 451st District Court of Kendall County had placed the relevant business entities – three limited partnerships – into receivership.

After the Kendall County court entered final judgment earlier this year, with an appeal still pending, the plaintiffs pursued a separate action. They sent notice removing Shalit as general partner of the business entities. They then filed a motion asking the Kendall County court to convert the existing receivership into a liquidating receivership. When that court denied the motion and extended the existing receivership instead, the plaintiffs filed a new suit directly in the Texas Business Court’s Fourth Division seeking appointment of a liquidating receiver and orders to dissolve, wind up, and terminate the partnerships.

The defendants challenged the Business Court’s jurisdiction.

The Court’s Analysis: Statutory Framework and Exclusive Jurisdiction

The Business Court’s analysis centered on the interplay between two statutory schemes: Chapter 25A of the Texas Government Code (which established the Business Court) and Chapter 11 of the Texas Business Organizations Code (which governs receiverships and dissolutions of Texas entities).

The Business Court’s Limited Jurisdiction

The court emphasized that its jurisdiction under Chapter 25A is “more circumscribed than that of the district courts in the state.” While the Business Court has concurrent jurisdiction over certain categories of actions – including those arising under the Business Organizations Code – that jurisdiction exists only within its current operating territory. The district court presiding over the original lawsuit sits in Kendall County, which is in the Sixth Administrative Judicial Region and beyond the Business Court’s current operating territory.

The Exclusivity Doctrine Under the Business Organizations Code

The relevant statutory provision is Section 11.408(b) of the Business Organizations Code, which states: “A court that appoints a receiver under this subchapter for the property or business of a domestic entity has exclusive jurisdiction over the domestic entity and all of its property, regardless of where the property is located.”

Because the Kendall County court appointed a receiver over the partnerships in 2018 and the receivership remained in effect, the Business Court concluded that the Kendall County court retained exclusive jurisdiction. The court cited the long-recognized principle that “a court appointing a receiver has exclusive jurisdiction over the property subject to receivership,” continuing “until either the court relinquishes its jurisdiction over the suit, or the receiver is discharged and the property is restored to the persons who are entitled to it.”

Rejecting Alternative Arguments

The court rejected the plaintiffs’ attempts to invoke alternative jurisdictional bases:

• General receivership statutes: The Civil Practice and Remedies Code’s general provision allowing “a court of competent jurisdiction” to appoint a receiver does not override the specific mandates in the Business Organizations Code.
• Contractual venue provisions: The partnerships’ designation of Bexar County as a place of performance in their agreements relates to venue, not subject-matter jurisdiction.
• Concurrent jurisdiction: Although Chapter 25A grants the Business Court concurrent jurisdiction over actions for which district courts have exclusive jurisdiction, Section 11.408 vests exclusivity in the specific court that appointed the receiver.

Practical Takeaways for Texas Businesses

The decision addresses several issues that may be relevant to Texas businesses, including:

1. Receivership jurisdiction. The court held that, once a Texas court appoints a receiver over business entities, that court retains exclusive control until the receivership concludes. Filing in a different forum does not change the result.
2. Business Court jurisdiction. The court held that the Texas Business Court cannot override an existing district court receivership.
3. Pending appeals. A pending appeal does not end the trial court’s receivership jurisdiction.