TBCblog

Comprehensive coverage of the Texas Business Court

Operated by

Reese Marketos LLP

Dallas, Texas  ·  Complex Commercial Litigation

← The Bench
Portrait of Hon. Bill Whitehill

Hon. Bill Whitehill

Judge · Seat 1B

Texas Business Court · First Business Court Division (Dallas)

Biography

Bill Whitehill is an inaugural Judge of the Texas Business Court First Division, Dallas. He came to the Court from Condon Tobin Sladek Thornton Nerenberg PLLC, where he was a member and led the firm’s Appellate Section. Before joining the Business Court, Bill served as a Justice on the Texas Fifth District Court of Appeals, where he authored over 600 substantive opinions. Bill was an associate and partner at Gardere Wynne Sewell, LLP, now known as Foley & Lardner, LLP for thirty-three years. At Gardere, he handled commercial, antitrust, securities, intellectual property, and fiduciary trials and appeals. He is a sustaining life fellow of the Texas Bar Foundation, and fellow of the Dallas Bar Foundation. He is a homeless kitchen volunteer for Cornerstone Baptist Church and is a former co-teacher and mentor at Cornerstone Crossroads Academy. Bill received a Bachelor of Business Administration in Finance from The University of Texas at Austin and a Juris Doctor with honors from the SMU Dedman School of Law and an Order of the Coif member.

Source: txcourts.gov

Opinions by Judge Whitehill (4)

Other rulings ×
2026 Tex. Bus. 24 May 11, 2026

Business Court Exercises Discretion to Deny Attorneys' Fees Under Section 37.009 Despite Clear Victory on Merits

In Dallas Sports Group v. DSE Hockey Club, the Business Court's 1st Division ordered each side to bear its own attorneys' fees under Civil Practice and Remedies Code § 37.009 despite plaintiffs prevailing on all substantive issues in a declaratory judgment action concerning redemption of partnership interests in the American Airlines Center. The court exercised its equitable discretion under the statute, which permits but does not require fee awards based on what is equitable and just rather than prevailing party status alone.

Mem. Op. Declaratory Judgment Attorney's Fees Section 37.009 Equitable Discretion Partnership Disputes Opinion PDF ↓
2026 Tex. Bus. 5 February 02, 2026

Business Court Interprets 'Responsible Third Party' and 'Harm for Which Recovery Is Sought' Under Chapter 33

In Preston Hollow Capital v. Truist Bank, the Texas Business Court interpreted Civil Practice & Remedies Code Chapter 33's definition of "responsible third party," focusing on the statutory phrase "the harm for which recovery of damages is sought." Judge Whitehill's memorandum opinion addresses how this language determines which non-parties may be designated as responsible third parties in proportionate responsibility disputes.

Chapter 33 Responsible Third Party Proportionate Responsibility Statutory Interpretation
2025 Tex. Bus. 55 December 19, 2025

Punitive Damages Waivers Enforceable in Bond Trustee Disputes; Terminated Trustees Retain Confidentiality Duties

In Preston Hollow Capital v. Truist Bank, the Texas Business Court held that the Trust Code does not bar enforcement of contractual punitive damages waivers in bond financing arrangements and that such waivers extend to related contracts within the same financing structure. The court further ruled that a trustee who resigns and is replaced must continue to protect confidential information obtained during the trust relationship, limiting discovery on post-termination breach claims.

Rule 166(g) Trust Code Section 114.007 Punitive Damages Waiver Bond Financing Trustee Duties Opinion PDF ↓
2025 Tex. Bus. 21 May 22, 2025

Partnership Agreement Liability Waiver Shields Non-Partners from Derivative Claims Despite Third-Party Beneficiary Disclaimer

In Primexx Energy Opportunity Fund, LP v. Primexx Energy Corporation, the Business Court of Texas addressed whether TAPA § 13.9's liability waiver for "Partner Affiliates" shields CEO Christopher Doyle and Blackstone entity defendants from conspiracy, aiding and abetting, and knowing participation claims related to the Callon sale. The central dispute turns on whether § 13.9's protections apply notwithstanding TAPA § 13.2's provision disclaiming third-party beneficiaries, with Doyle citing Pratt-Shaw v. Pilgrim's Pride Corp. to support his position as a protected non-partner affiliate.

Mem. Op. Private Equity Partnership Agreements Liability Waivers Third-Party Beneficiaries Section 152.002 Opinion PDF ↓