About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline
LOG IN
LOG IN

8 Tex. A&M L. Rev. 1 (2020-2021)

handle is hein.journals/twlram8 and id is 1 raw text is: ARTICLES FRAUD IS NOW LEGAL IN TEXAS (FOR SOME PEOPLE) by: Val Ricks* ABSTRACT Three intermediate appellate courts in Texas have held that corporate ac- tors-directors, officers, managers, shareholders, and probably common em- ployees and agents-are immune from personal liability for fraud that they themselves commit as long as their deceit relates to or arises from a contrac- tual obligation of the corporation. Similar actors in limited liability companies also enjoy immunity. These courts do not require that the business entities themselves be liable for the fraud. When the entities are not liable, these new holdings leave fraud victims no remedy at all, even if a jury would find fraud. One (or maybe two) Texas appellate courts have held otherwise. The Supreme Court of Texas will probably decide the issue, and one justice has already signed on. To date, these decisions have only been noticed in print by a few practicing attorneys. No commentator has questioned them. But the decisions are wrong. These courts claim to be following a statute, but the statute does not support the courts' analysis. Nor does the statute's legislative history. Surprising (and probably unnoticed) results strongly suggest the legislature never intended this reading. And what rationale could justify it? Fraud is the economic equivalent of theft. Practitioner comments on the decisions suggest that the cost of litigat- ing fraud is too high. Texas's reputation for pro-business policies might sug- gest this move is just helpful de-regulation, but it is not. Policing fraud is the only way to make markets safe for freedom of contract, and litigating fraud claims is the courts' role. These decisions should be abandoned before they become the law in all of Texas and elsewhere. TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION .......................................... 2 II. THE STATUTE ........................................... 5 III. THE HOUSTON CASES................................... 8 A . T ecL ogistics......................................... 8 B . H ong v. H avey...................................... 17 1. Subsection (a)(2) ............................... 18 2. Subsection (b) .................................. 19 IV. COUNTERARGUMENTS................................... 21 A. The Court's Misreading ............................. 21 1. The Law of Statutes ............................ 21 3. The New Anomaly That Is Subsection (b)...... 28 4. Legislative Intent ............................... 30 DOI: https://doi.org/10.37419/LR.V8.I1.1 * Professor of Law, South Texas College of Law Houston. The Author thanks Glenn West for helpful discussions of several related issues. 1

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Short-term subscription options include 24 hours, 48 hours, or 1 week to HeinOnline.

Purchase Access

Contact us for annual subscription options:

Contact Us

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most