Author: Kelly McElroy

Inside the Texas Business Court: A Practical Guide for Businesses

Posted on by Kelly McElroy

When Texas opened its Business Court on September 1, 2024, skeptics questioned whether a new specialized forum would attract enough cases to matter. Nearly two years in, the numbers have answered yes. The Business Court took 185 cases in its first fiscal year, a pace that compares favorably with the early years of statewide business courts in Georgia, Wyoming, and North Carolina, and filings in the opening months of fiscal year 2026 ran 38 percent above the prior year’s average.[1] I recently examined how the Business Court fits into Texas’s broader effort to rival Delaware. This article looks at the court itself, such as how it is built, what it can hear, how cases reach it, and what its first two years reveal about litigating there.

How the Court Is Built

The Business Court is a single statewide trial court divided into 11 geographic divisions, five of them operational: Dallas (First Division), Austin (Third Division), San Antonio (Fourth Division), Fort Worth (Eighth Division), and Houston (Eleventh Division).[2] Each operating division has two judges, appointed by the Governor for two-year terms, and every judge must bring at least ten years of experience in complex business litigation, business transactional work, or civil judicial service. One clerk’s office in Austin handles filings statewide, and judges may sit for one another across divisions to equalize dockets, a mechanism that moved 22 cases in the first year, nearly all out of Houston.

Two features set the court apart from an ordinary district court. Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 360 requires the Business Court to issue written opinions in specified circumstances and permits one with any order.[3] The Business Court issued forty-two written opinions in its first year.[4] That is how Texas intends to build the predictable body of corporate case law that took Delaware decades to accumulate. Appeals, meanwhile, are channeled to the Fifteenth Court of Appeals, which, as the Texas Supreme Court confirmed in Kelley v. Homminga and Devon Energy Production Co. v. Oliver, holds exclusive jurisdiction over Business Court appeals but no general jurisdiction over ordinary civil appeals.[5]

What the Court Can Hear

Chapter 25A of the Government Code defines the Business Court’s jurisdiction. The largest category, invoked in 145 of the first year’s 185 filings, covers corporate governance, such as derivative proceedings, actions regarding an organization’s governance, governing documents, or internal affairs, securities claims, and disputes involving controlling persons and managerial officials.[6] A second covers commercial disputes arising from “qualified transactions.” House Bill 40, which went into effect on September 1, 2025, cut that amount-in-controversy threshold from $10 million to $5 million and added jurisdiction over intellectual property and trade-secret disputes and certain arbitration proceedings.[7] Less widely appreciated is that the statute gives effect to party choice. For an action arising out of a contract or commercial transaction clearing the $5 million threshold, the parties may agree in the contract or afterward that the Business Court has jurisdiction.[8] That makes the Business Court a drafting consideration as much as a litigation one.

Paths to the Court

Three paths lead into the Business Court: an original petition, removal from a district court or county court at law, and judge-initiated transfer (though no case arrived by this avenue in the first year). Out of the cases that the Business Court handled during its first year, 43 percent of the cases arrived by removal.[9] An agreed notice of removal may be filed at any time, but a contested removal must come within 30 days of the later of service or the date the removing party discovered, or reasonably should have discovered, facts establishing jurisdiction.[10] Those deadlines have teeth. The court remanded for untimely removal in Sun Metals Group v. Yu, rejecting the argument that supplemental claims should be excluded in fixing when a case first became removable because Chapter 25A does not permit “supplemental claims,”[11] and again in DrinkPAK, LLC v. PRIII/Crow Building C, LP, where it looked past the pleadings to the underlying lease and pre-suit correspondence to determine that there was “no reasonable doubt” that the jurisdictional facts necessary to confer the Business Court with jurisdiction were “discovered, or should have [been] discovered” well before the defendants filed their removal notice to the Business Court.[12]

The removal fight runs in the other direction too. In In re ColossusBets Ltd., the Fifteenth Court of Appeals took up an issue of first impression – whether a plaintiff may amend its pleadings after removal to strip the Business Court of jurisdiction. The Fifteenth Court of Appeals held yes, a party may amend his pleadings to remove facts giving rise to the Business Court’s jurisdiction, but at a permanent price.[13] A plaintiff who expressly disclaims the allegations, theories or relief supporting jurisdiction waives them irrevocably.[14] The court also confirmed that the Business Court may revisit its own removal rulings and that jurisdiction is not fixed as of the moment of removal.[15] For defendants, a removal resting on a single jurisdictional hook is vulnerable if the plaintiff is willing to abandon it. Remand is no idle threat generally: 19 cases, roughly 1 in 10 filings, were remanded in the first year.[16]

The First Trials

Powers v. Berry, tried in Houston in February 2026, ran eight days over ownership of a planned crude oil export terminal near Corpus Christi. At least 10 of 12 jurors agreed on each answer in a 20-question charge, finding a valid agreement conveying a one-fifth interest and awarding $2.4 million in attorney’s fees.[17] A week later the Dallas division empaneled its own first jury in Quintero v. Urban Infraconstruction, but the case never reached deliberations, given that the court directed a verdict for the defense on the trial’s second day, the plaintiffs’ damages evidence having proved fundamentally insufficient.[18]

The lessons cut two ways. Juries are available and willing to decide complex, high-dollar commercial disputes, which is a structural difference from Delaware’s Court of Chancery, where there are none, and the judges will not hesitate to end a case mid-trial when the proof fails. Speed is the other headline. The Business Court resolved 85 percent of the disposed cases in the first year within 180 days, and the Business Court’s administrative rules set internal targets for prompt rulings on matters under advisement.[19]

 

Strategic Considerations

Two distinct drafting tools are now available. Senate Bill 29 amended the Business Organizations Code to let Texas entities designate the Business Court as the exclusive forum for “internal entity claims” in their governing documents and to include binding jury trial waivers for those claims, enforceable even against equity holders who never signed the document.[20] Separately, and for ordinary commercial agreements rather than governing documents, parties to a qualifying transaction may consent by contract to the Business Court’s jurisdiction. The two mechanisms cover different ground and conflating them in a form agreement is an easy way to draft a clause that does not do what it appears to do.

For litigators, the analysis starts with geography. Only 5 of 11 divisions are operating, and a case whose county of proper venue lies outside an operating division cannot be removed or transferred to the Business Court at all, so venue should be mapped before any removal strategy is built. The dormant divisions, however, are not dead. House Bill 40 repealed the sunset provisions that would have abolished them on September 1, 2026.[21] The removal clock deserves equal attention, since it can begin running not at service but when jurisdictional facts reasonably come to light.

There are considerations on the other side of the ledger, though the most immediate one has just eased. Business Court judges serve two-year terms rather than the fixed elected terms of Texas district judges, which makes the composition of the bench a live variable in long-running cases. However, Governor Abbott reappointed all 10 sitting judges on July 29, 2026 to new terms beginning September 1, and continuity now appears to be the working expectation.[22] The body of precedent, while growing quickly, remains young. And the Business Court’s constitutional foundation has yet to be directly tested. In Brown v. Exxon Mobil Corp., a former executive argued that a statewide trial court staffed by appointed judges cannot be squared with the Texas Constitution’s districting and election requirements. The Business Court never reached the question, remanding in May 2026 on statutory grounds.[23] However, the Texas Supreme Court has already turned aside a similar attack on the Fifteenth Court of Appeals.[24]

While none of this is disqualifying, it does belong in a candid forum analysis before a business commits its dispute, or its contracts, to the new court.

Pastore LLC represents businesses, financial institutions, and executives in complex commercial and securities litigation and counsels clients on forum-selection and governance questions, and has attorneys admitted in, among other jurisdictions, Connecticut, New York, and Texas.

[1] Annual Report FY 2025, Bus. Ct. Tex. at 7–8, 12–13, https://www.txcourts.gov/media/1461667/bcot-ar-fy-25_.pdf (last visited Aug. 10, 2026).

[2] Tex. Gov’t Code § 25A.003; Business Court, Tex. Jud. Branch, https://www.txcourts.gov/businesscourt/ (last visited Aug. 10, 2026).

[3] Tex. R. Civ. P. 360.

[4] Annual Report FY 2025, supra note 1, at 6.

[5] Kelley v. Homminga, 706 S.W.3d 829, 834 (Tex. 2025) (per curiam).

[6] Tex. Gov’t Code § 25A.004(b); Annual Report FY 2025, supra note 1, at 7.

[7] Tex. H.B. 40, 89th Leg., R.S. (amending Tex. Gov’t Code §§ 25A.001(14), 25A.004).

[8] Tex. Gov’t Code § 25A.004(d)(3).

[9] Annual Report FY 2025, supra note 1, at 8.

[10] Tex. Gov’t Code § 25A.006(d)–(g); Tex. R. Civ. P. 355.

[11] Sun Metals Group, LLC v. Yu, No. 25-BC01A-0050, 2026 WL 37435, at *2 (Tex. Bus. Ct. Jan. 6, 2026).

[12] DrinkPAK, LLC v. PRIII/Crow Bldg. C, LP, No. 26-BC08A-0007, 2026 WL 1347499, at *2–3 (Tex. Bus. Ct. May 14, 2026).

[13] In re ColossusBets Ltd., 731 S.W.3d 366, 370–71 (Tex. App. 15th Dist. 2026).

[14] Id.

[15] Id.

[16] Annual Report FY 2025, supra note 1, at 10.

[17] Powers v. Berry, Cause No. 24-BC11A-0025 (Tex. Bus. Ct., 11th Div.); see also Ryan Autullo, Texas Jurors Reach Verdict in First Business Court Jury Trial, Bloomberg Law (Feb. 23, 2026), https://news.bloomberglaw.com/litigation/texas-jurors-reach-verdict-in-first-business-court-jury-trial.

[18] Quintero v. Urban Infraconstruction LLC, Cause No. 25-BC01A-0022 (Tex. Bus. Ct., 1st Div.).

[19] Annual Report FY 2025, supra note 1, at 11; see generally Local Rules of Admin. for the Tex. Bus. Ct. (rev. July 1, 2026), https://www.txcourts.gov/businesscourt/practice-before-the-court/ (last visited Aug. 10, 2026).

[20] Tex. Bus. Orgs. Code §§ 2.115(b)(2), 2.116.

[21] Tex. Gov’t Code § 25A.006(e); H.B. 40, supra note 7 (repealing the divisional sunset provisions in Tex. Gov’t Code § 25A.003).

[22] Governor Abbott Reappoints Ten Judges To Texas Business Court, Off. Tex. Governor (July 29, 2026), https://gov.texas.gov/news/post/governor-abbott-reappoints-ten-judges-to-texas-business-court; Tex. Gov’t Code § 25A.009 (two-year terms; reappointment permitted).

[23] Brown v. Exxon Mobil Corp., No. 25-BC11B-0099, 2026 WL 1531165, at *12-13 (Tex. Bus. Ct. May 29, 2026).

[24] See In re Dallas Cnty., 697 S.W.3d 142, 165 (Tex. 2024).

Pastore LLC Succeeds Day Pitney LLP as Counsel in High Profile Private Equity Dispute Following Remand by the Connecticut Supreme Court

Posted on by Kelly McElroy

Pastore LLC was recently retained by the plaintiff in a long-running dispute among members of a private equity firm. The case was initially filed in 2013 and resulted in a March 2018 jury verdict in plaintiff’s favor, with two appeals to the Connecticut Supreme Court following the jury trial. Pastore was retained to succeed Day Pitney LLP after it came to light that a former Connecticut Supreme Court Justice who heard the Supreme Court appeal, and who is now a Day Pitney partner, worked on the matter, resulting in defendants’ motion to disqualify Day Pitney and for other relief. Pastore successfully objected to the defendants’ motion for order that would have unduly punished the plaintiff, including a request that would have prevented Day Pitney from facilitating the transition of the matter to Pastore. The case is scheduled to be retried before a jury in November 2026.

Pastore has a long history of handling sophisticated matters, including cases involving private equity and securities, and is prepared to advocate for our clients at any stage of litigation.

Why Texas Is Becoming a Serious Rival to Delaware

Posted on by Kelly McElroy

For nearly a century, “incorporate in Delaware” has been the reflexive advice given to American businesses, from Main Street startups to Fortune 500 giants. Delaware earned that position by having a specialized business court in the Court of Chancery, a deep bench of judges who do nothing but corporate law and a legislature that historically has moved quickly to keep its statutes current and business friendly.

Texas has spent the past three years assembling its own version of all three advantages, and the pace has accelerated considerably in recent months. Texas has created a specialized business court, passed a wave of corporate-governance legislation aimed squarely at companies deciding where to incorporate and, as of this month, began live trading on its own national stock exchange. These developments deserve to be examined together, because none of them happened by accident.

A Court Built to Generate Precedent

The Texas Legislature created the Texas Business Court in 2023 through House Bill 19, and the court began accepting cases on September 1, 2024.[1] Its judges are appointed rather than elected, and each must have at least ten years of experience in complex business litigation, business transactional work or prior service as a civil judge in Texas. Two design choices reveal the Legislature’s ambition. First, the Business Court issues written opinions, a departure from ordinary Texas trial-court practice and the mechanism by which Texas intends to build the kind of searchable, predictable body of corporate case law that took Delaware decades to accumulate. Second, appeals are channeled to a purpose-built appellate court, the Fifteenth Court of Appeals, which holds exclusive jurisdiction over appeals from the Business Court.[2] The structure deliberately echoes the relationship between Delaware’s Court of Chancery and the Delaware Supreme Court.

The Legislature has continued to invest in the project. House Bill 40, effective September 1, 2025, cut the amount-in-controversy threshold for a broad category of commercial disputes from $10 million to $5 million and extended the court’s jurisdiction to intellectual property, trade-secret and arbitration-related disputes.[3] A meaningful share of ordinary commercial disputes involving Texas parties now falls within its reach.

 

Statutes Written for the Boardroom

The second front is statutory. Senate Bill 29, enacted in May 2025, rewrote significant portions of Texas corporate law with an unmistakable audience in mind: boards and general counsel comparing Texas against Delaware. Among other changes, the legislation codified the business judgment rule, raised procedural hurdles for shareholder derivative litigation and expressly authorized corporations to adopt jury-trial waivers and forum-selection provisions in their governing documents, including provisions channeling internal disputes into the Business Court.[4] The statute has already been tested. Earlier this year, a federal court in the Northern District of Texas relied on S.B. 29 in dismissing a shareholder derivative suit and rejected the plaintiff’s argument that the statute was unconstitutional.[5]

Texas voters did their part as well. In November 2025, they approved a constitutional amendment prohibiting the Legislature from imposing an occupation tax on securities market operators or any tax on securities transactions.[6] On its face, a technical tax provision. In context, a promise of long-term fiscal certainty to exactly the kind of institution Texas was about to bring online.

 

The Texas Stock Exchange

That institution is the Texas Stock Exchange (“TXSE”). The SEC approved TXSE’s Form 1 registration as a national securities exchange on September 30, 2025, making it the first fully integrated national exchange approved in decades, and the exchange began live trading in Dallas on July 6, 2026, in a phased rollout expected to bring thousands of listed securities online by the end of the month.[7] Its backers include BlackRock, Citadel Securities, Charles Schwab and JPMorgan Chase, with roughly $275 million in committed capital behind the launch.[8]

The milestone that matters most is still ahead. Corporate listings are expected to begin in the fourth quarter of 2026, and TXSE plans a single-tier structure with listing standards pitched at mid- and large-cap issuers. An exchange that merely trades securities listed elsewhere is a curiosity. One that begins winning corporate listings opens a second front in the competition with the NYSE and Nasdaq, and gives companies weighing an IPO or a dual listing a genuinely new variable to consider.

 

The Broader Contest

None of this is happening in a vacuum. A steady procession of prominent public companies has reincorporated out of Delaware in recent years, a trend that has been coined “DExit,” citing everything from frustration with particular Chancery rulings to a desire for statutory predictability. Federal regulators have noticed. Speaking at Texas A&M School of Law’s Corporate Law Symposium in February, SEC Chairman Paul Atkins observed that “Texas has begun to build something that could offer an interesting alternative to Delaware,” and framed interstate competition for corporate charters as a healthy feature of American capital markets.[9]

Delaware’s position is not in near-term jeopardy. It retains more than a century’s head start in case law, judicial expertise and market familiarity, and Texas will need years of written opinions before its courts offer comparable predictability, to say nothing of the time required for a new exchange to win listings away from two entrenched incumbents. But that direction is becoming clearer, as the infrastructure is no longer theoretical. The court is deciding cases, the statutes are being enforced and the exchange is trading.

 

What This Means for Businesses — Including Those Far From Texas

A company does not need a headquarters in Dallas to feel these changes. For businesses negotiating significant contracts with Texas counterparties, forum-selection clauses deserve fresh attention: the $5 million threshold and the Business Court’s removal mechanism mean a dispute can land in the new forum whether or not the parties planned for it. For boards and investors evaluating where to incorporate, or facing pressure from shareholders or acquirers to consider it, the comparison between S.B. 29’s codified protections and Delaware’s judge-made doctrine is now a genuine legal analysis rather than a thought experiment, with real trade-offs running in both directions: Texas offers statutory clarity and management-friendly procedure, while Delaware still offers unmatched depth of precedent. And for issuers thinking ahead to the capital markets, TXSE’s listing standards and the incentives Texas has extended to companies that list on a Texas exchange, add a new dimension to going-public and dual-listing decisions.

 

Pastore LLC advises businesses, financial institutions, and executives on corporate governance, securities matters, and complex commercial litigation, and has attorneys who have been admitted to the Delaware courts for certain sophisticated matters and the Texas Bar.

[1] Tex. H.B. 19, 88th Leg., R.S. (2023) (codified at Tex. Gov’t Code Ch. 25A), https://capitol.texas.gov/BillLookup/Text.aspx?LegSess=88R&Bill=HB19.

[2] The Business Court, Tex. Jud. Branch, https://www.txcourts.gov/businesscourt/ (last accessed July 9, 2026).

[3] Tex. H.B. 40, 89th Leg., R.S. (2025) (amending Tex. Gov’t Code Ch. 25A).

[4] Tex. S.B. 29, 89th Leg., R.S. (2025) (amending the Tex. Bus. Orgs. Code).

[5] Gusinsky v Reynolds, 3:25-CV-1816-K, 2026 WL 747179, at *4-6 (N.D. Tex. Mar. 17, 2026).

[6] Tex. H.J.R. 4, 89th Leg., R.S. (2025) (approved by Texas voters Nov. 4, 2025); see also Texas Stock Exchange Begins Trading as Dallas Challenges Wall Street, Texas Policy Research (July 6, 2026), https://www.texaspolicyresearch.com/texas-stock-exchange-begins-trading-as-dallas-challenges-wall-street/.

[7] In the Matter of the Application of Texas Stock Exchange LLC for Registration as a National Securities Exchange, Exchange Act Release No. 34-104146 (Sept. 30, 2025), https://www.sec.gov/files/rules/other/2025/34-104146.pdf; TXSE Production Launch and Market Activation, Texas Stock Exchange, https://www.txse.com/alerts/txse-2026-002 (last accessed July 9, 2026).

[8] Paul Cobler, Texas Stock Exchange to launch trading Monday, The Texas Tribune (July 3, 2026), https://www.texastribune.org/2026/07/03/texas-stock-exchange-launch-trading/.

[9] Paul S. Atkins, Remarks on Revitalizing U.S. Capital Markets and State Competition in Corporate Law, Texas A&M School of Law Corporate Law Symposium (Feb. 17, 2026), republished at Harvard Law School Forum on Corporate Governance, https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2026/02/18/remarks-by-chair-atkins-on-revitalizing-u-s-capital-markets-and-state-competition-in-corporate-law/.

Tyler W. Rutherford Admitted to the State Bar of Texas

Posted on by Kelly McElroy

Pastore LLC is pleased to announce that Tyler W. Rutherford has been admitted to practice law in the State of Texas. This admission expands Mr. Rutherford’s multi-jurisdictional practice, which already includes Connecticut, New York, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

Mr. Rutherford’s practice focuses on securities and corporate litigation, breach of fiduciary duty claims, business torts, and transactional matters. His expanded admission reflects Pastore LLC’s continued growth and its capacity to serve clients across an increasingly broad geographic footprint.

Pastore LLC Welcomes Its Summer Class

Posted on by Kelly McElroy

Pastore LLC welcomes its 2026 Summer Class. The firm welcomes three Summer Associates and two Summer Law Interns. The Pastore Summer Associates are: Cyddni Smith, who has a degree from New York University in Economics, and is a second year at Pace University Elizabeth Haub School of Law. Darin Carlin, who has a degree from Fordham University in Economics, and is a first year at Pace University Elizabeth Haub School of Law. DeJa Sutherland who has a degree from St. John’s University in History, and is a first year at Pace University Elizabeth Haub School of Law. Pastore also welcomes Summer Interns Victoria Stockdale, a rising junior at the University of Richmond majoring in Business Administration and minor in Law and Liberal Arts, and Ava Kuehn, a rising junior at Bucknell University majoring in Political Science and Philosophy.

Pastore Attorney Tyler W. Rutherford Awarded the Rising Star Award

Posted on by Kelly McElroy

Tyler W. Rutherford was recently awarded the Rising Star Award for the Private Sector at the 2026 Pace Haub Law Advocacy Program Gavel Gala. Mr. Rutherford is a proud graduate of Pace Law School and routinely gives back to the law school’s Advocacy Program. Mr. Rutherford regularly handles complex matters involving securities disputes, fiduciary duties and corporate disputes in federal and state courts.

Pastore LLC Represents Senior Vice President in Dispute With World’s Largest Asset Manager

Posted on by Kelly McElroy

Pastore LLC recently represented a Senior Vice President of the world’s largest asset manager in an employment dispute involving senior managers involved with investor relations. Our attorneys worked closely with the client to navigate complex workplace dynamics, securities industry issues and engage in strategic negotiations with the employer. The matter involved the gathering of some of the world’s largest private equity investors. Through these efforts, we successfully secured a favorable settlement and negotiated an amicable separation that protected our client’s professional reputation and future career opportunities.

Pastore LLC Ranked in Chambers USA New York Spotlight Guide 2026

Posted on by Kelly McElroy

Pastore LLC has been ranked in Chambers USA New York Spotlight Guide 2026 and recognized as a leading small to medium-sized law firm offering a credible alternative to Big Law.

Pastore LLC was selected based on an independent and in-depth market analysis, coupled with an assessment of the firm’s experience, expertise and caliber of talent.

Chambers Spotlight New York 2026 highlights 262 ranked firms across seven regions and 31 distinct practice areas.

Now featuring 67 ranking tables, this expanded edition showcases Metro New York’s unmatched concentration of legal talent, and captures the full spectrum of work handled by the country’s leading small and mid-sized firms – from high-stakes commercial litigation, white-collar defence and securities disputes to complex corporate/commercial, real estate and employment matters.

Pastore LLC stood out for its exceptional work and is recognized in Litigation: Securities.

Joseph M. Pastore III expressed the firm’s gratitude: “Pastore LLC is honored to be recognized by Chambers and Partners in their Spotlight Ranking for Metro New York. This acknowledgment reflects our commitment to providing top-tier legal services tailored to the unique needs of our clients and the complex matters that we help them navigate.”

This recognition underscores Pastore LLC’s position as a key player in Connecticut and New York’s legal landscape, offering clients access to high-quality legal representation that combines Big Law expertise with local specialized support.

Background to Firm

In 2012, former Big Law attorneys came together to establish Pastore LLC. After decades of experiences at Big Law, the founders already had built successful careers. Yet, they hoped to achieve something more. At larger law firms, the founders watched clients struggle with bureaucracy and lack of personal commitment. Pastore was founded to provide clients an opportunity to work closely with experienced attorneys in sophisticated and important matters. With Pastore, clients enjoy best of both worlds: capability of a big law firm and personal approach of a small law firm.

For fourteen years, Pastore LLC has built credibility through hard work and a client-focused approach. Pastore has a global reach; the firm has a strong reputation in Metro New York, but it also draws clients from across the country and internationally. The firm’s approach to growth is simple: Pastore’s attorneys take exceptional care of the legal issues clients face.

Although Pastore is ranked in Chambers New York 2026 for securities litigation, the firm provides excellent legal services in various fields. Pastore’s attorneys have experience at top national firms such as Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP, Kelley Drye & Warren LLP, Brown Raysman Millstein Felder & Steiner LLP, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP, Proskauer Rose LLP, and regulatory agencies such as the Securities and Exchange Commission and the New York Stock Exchange. Pastore counts as its alumni attorneys at top 10 firms and the Lieutenant Governor of the State of Connecticut. The firm handles commercial and securities litigation, corporate, employment, intellectual property, real estate and construction litigation, and many other areas. Regardless of whether the matter is transactional, advisory, or litigation, experienced attorneys are always ready to take on the matter.

Background to Chambers and Partners

Chambers and Partners has over 30 years of US research in the Legal Market and therefore uniquely placed to identify markets where there is a significant collection of leading smaller firms, Chambers is on a mission to uncover the best legal talent wherever it may be.

Chambers is on a mission to uncover and champion the best legal talent across the United States, wherever it exists, starting with shining a spotlight on select states in 2024.

Chambers sought to identify the leading small to medium-sized law firms offering a credible alternative to Big Law. The ranked firms were selected based on independent and in-depth market analysis, coupled with an assessment of their experience, expertise and calibre of talent.

Chambers Spotlight covers Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, California, Illinois, Ohio, Texas, Georgia, Florida, North Carolina and New York State.

 

Pastore Attorney Tyler W. Rutherford’s Article Published in the Westchester Lawyer

Posted on by Kelly McElroy

Tyler W. Rutherford was recently published in the Westchester Lawyer, the journal of the Westchester County Bar Association. His article examines how Texas’s evolving financial and judicial infrastructure, including the TXSE, the Texas Business Court, and the NYSE’s expansion into Dallas, is reshaping the corporate law landscape traditionally dominated by Delaware. The article can be accessed here.

As a firm that applies a long history of practice in traditional finance and securities to the realm of corporate formation and financial platforms, Pastore LLC can advise clients on best practices concerning the state of domicile or corporate structure for their business.

Connecticut Appellate Court Rules in Favor of Pastore LLC’s Hedge Fund Clients in Landmark Jury Trial Decision

Posted on by Kelly McElroy

In a complex dispute involving multimillion-dollar private equity investments and hedge fund ownership, the Connecticut Appellate Court ruled in favor of Pastore LLC clients over investors represented by Wiggin and Dana. The trial court consolidated two related actions and removed both cases from the jury docket just weeks before trial. Despite repeated filings including jury trial claims, the trial court held that those claims were untimely under Connecticut General Statutes § 52-215, concluded that the parties had not provided valid written consent, and proceeded instead with a bench trial that resulted in judgments against the appellants.

On appeal, the Connecticut Appellate Court reversed, holding that the parties’ filings, including jury claims and certificates of closed pleadings, constituted binding written consent under § 52-215. The Court emphasized that once such consent is given, it cannot be unilaterally withdrawn, and timeliness is not a barrier where written consent exists. The decision reaffirms the strength of Connecticut’s jury trial statute, clarifies that written consent may be established through procedural filings, and ensures that litigants’ constitutional right to a jury trial is preserved.

Pastore LLC’s appellate team, including Joseph M. Pastore III, Melissa Rose McClammy, Paul Fenaroli and Tyler Rutherford, successfully argued that the trial court’s approach undermined both statute and precedent, persuading the Appellate Court to restore the cases to the jury docket. This ruling not only protects the rights of the firm’s clients but also establishes an important precedent for future Connecticut litigants by confirming that properly documented filings satisfy the written consent standard. The decision underscores the firm’s commitment to safeguarding procedural rights and achieving impactful results in high-stakes commercial litigation and financial services.