Menu icon Access the Business Officer Magazine menu by clicking or touching here.
Colorado Lawyer Magazine logo, click or touch this logo to return to the homepage Click or touch the Colorado Lawyer Magazine logo to return to the homepage. Search
As I See It

Fostering a Business-Friendly Climate

Is It Time for Colorado to Consider Specialized Courts of Chancery?

January/February 2026 By Daniel W. Glasser and Mark Walker

Download This Article (.pdf)

Every politician in Colorado understands the immutable correlation between thriving corporate growth and the state budget. Hence, Colorado Governor Jared Polis proudly points to the effort his administration has made to foster a business-friendly climate: “Colorado has one of the best economies in the country and we continue working to ensure it remains the best place to launch and grow a business.”1 But while Colorado chases this dream of becoming an incubator for innovation, Delaware remains the preferred venue for corporate formation—primarily because of its legal framework, its specialized chancery courts, and its expansive body of jurisprudence on business issues.

So, what is Colorado doing to compete? Unfortunately, very little. Colorado’s published jurisprudence on business questions remains vanishingly small. And the judges who are randomly assigned to adjudicate corporate cases at the trial court level are typically trained in criminal law and domestic relations. And even if a corporate litigant is lucky enough to draw a judge with training somewhat relevant to the substantive business issues, the Colorado district courts require that judge to rotate their docket. In other words, the assigned judge has already spent or will spend a substantial amount of time on the bench deciding matters utterly irrelevant to Colorado corporate law.

If Colorado really wants to be the “best place to launch and grow a business,” it must look closely at the ways its judicial system impacts that objective. Other jurisdictions have already taken steps to compete with Delaware for corporate citizens. This article explores exactly what those states are doing, reviews what Colorado has attempted to do, and makes the case for specialized courts of chancery in Colorado.

Recent History of Business Courts

On September 1, 2024, Texas became the most recent state to institute a business court. Around half of all states now have courts specially designed to adjudicate business and commercial disputes.2 Even Delaware, where the Court of Chancery has long been the national gold standard forum for commercial litigation, recently added a Complex Commercial Litigation Division to its superior court.3 Despite the growing number of states recognizing the value of specialized business courts, Colorado has not followed suit.

The Centennial State last considered the formation of a business court in 2000, when the Governor’s Task Force on Civil Justice Reform established a Committee on Business Courts (the Committee).4 The Committee recommended that “the State Judicial Department consider the establishment of a business court for the exclusive purpose of hearing commercial cases.”5 At the time, however, Chief Justice Mullarkey concluded that too few qualifying business cases existed in Denver to justify piloting such a court.6 Opting instead for a “specialized case management” approach, Colorado launched the Civil Access Pilot Project Applicable to Business Actions in District Court (CAPP) in 2012.7 While CAPP attempted to imitate some distinctives of business courts to streamline litigation, the new rules did not have the desired impact, and Colorado discontinued the experiment in 2015.8

The landscape has changed dramatically since the Committee made its recommendations in 2000. In addition to Texas and Delaware, 20 states have established and/or expanded business courts, six have made existing pilot business courts permanent, and three have initiated new pilot programs.9 Given this broad trend over the last quarter-century, it is time for Colorado to revisit the concept of chancery or specialized business courts.

What Is a Business Court?

While details vary from state to state, most business courts are characterized by some or all of the following key features: limited jurisdiction based on the nature of the dispute and the amount in controversy; a single judge with extensive expertise in commercial litigation who presides over the case from beginning to end; and published written opinions at the trial court level.10

To be eligible for business court, a dispute must usually involve:

  • the formation, dissolution, governance, or liquidation of businesses;
  • obligations between, and liability or indemnity of, businesses or their owners, officers, directors, or partners;
  • breach of contract, fraud, misrepresentation, or statutory violations between businesses;
  • intellectual property, trade secrets, or non-solicitation, confidentiality, or licensing agreements;
  • shareholder derivative or commercial class actions;
  • commercial real property; or
  • antitrust and securities.11

Several states also specify the types of cases not eligible for business courts, including:

  • personal injury, survivorship, and wrongful death;
  • product liability and consumer protection;
  • discrimination and civil rights;
  • individual residential real estate disputes and foreclosures;
  • domestic relations, probate, juvenile, and criminal matters; and
  • consumer debts.12

While some states define eligible disputes through statutory categories, others permit varying degrees of judicial discretion in assigning matters to business courts.13 Many also require a specified minimum amount in controversy for eligibility.14

Business court judges are usually volunteers who are more often appointed than elected, although the mechanism of appointment varies.15 Selection criteria typically include a combination of educational background and significant experience with complex commercial litigation.16 Having a single expert judge preside over an entire case from beginning to end is a key feature of every business court.17 By regularly interacting with corporate and academic leaders, business court jurists are able to remain abreast of current developments in business law.18 Moreover, while a majority of business courts retain the right to a jury trial, some try cases exclusively to the bench, ensuring that decisions are made by an expert and experienced fact finder.19

Finally, many states publish written opinions from business courts, creating a body of publicly accessible commercial law precedent.20 In some states, judges also have the discretion “to write opinions on non-dispositive matters of first impression or novel issues.”21

Benefits of a Business Court

The purpose of business courts “is to provide an efficient forum for the just, expeditious, and consistent resolution of complex commercial or business cases.”22 The argument in favor of such courts is that they create a more attractive environment for business entities to form, headquarter, operate, and litigate disputes.23 The internal affairs doctrine motivates corporations to incorporate in jurisdictions offering a specialized forum for resolving internal governance disputes.24 More important, a superior forum for external litigation would make Colorado a more attractive location for businesses to headquarter and operate.25 Access to business courts has also been associated with a statistically significant increase in corporate performance.26

Business courts create a more efficient, lower cost forum for complex commercial litigation.27 Having a single, knowledgeable judge presiding produces more efficient case management and increases the likelihood of pretrial settlement.28 Moreover, expert judges publishing opinions would generate a robust body of case law and provide businesses greater certainty regarding Colorado law and confidence in the consistency and predictability of litigation outcomes.29 Colorado would enjoy obvious economic benefits from attracting sophisticated businesses and becoming a preferred incubator for new cutting-edge enterprises. A business court could also influence business law precedent nationwide, as more businesses in states without such a court may elect to litigate in Colorado.30

Answering Critics of Business Courts

Critics often point to a lack of hard evidence that business courts actually produce the benefits proponents claim.31 However, 25 years of experience across numerous states has begun to produce such evidence, particularly regarding one of the most attractive features to businesses: increased efficiency in commercial litigation.32 The introduction of New York’s business court yielded a 35% increase in the disposition of commercial cases with no investment of additional judicial resources.33 Georgia’s business court reported in 2012:

On average, the Business Court is able to administer a complex contract case in 608 days, compared to an estimated 1,746 days on the general docket—a 65% faster disposition time. With respect to complex tort cases, the Business Court is able to move cases through resolution in 566 days on average, compared to an estimated 1,284 days on the general docket—a 56% faster disposition time.34

A recent survey in Iowa found that over 65% of responding attorneys believed cases were resolved more quickly by the business court, and more than 56% said the cost of litigation was probably lower.35 Around 72% thought the growing body of published case law would increase predictability in business litigation.36 Significantly, over 87% also said the business court improved the quality of business litigation in Iowa, and nearly 90% thought it improved Iowa’s court system as a whole.37 Moreover, research demonstrating that businesses benefit from access to specialized courts, combined with the ongoing dominance of Delaware as the preferred state for incorporation, supports the assertion that “business courts help to attract and retain businesses and therefore generate tax revenues and provide jobs.”38

Critics complain that business courts are funded by taxpayers, many of whom receive no direct benefit.39 Yet government operations are often funded by taxpayers who benefit, not directly, but through broader positive effects on society. Indeed, Colorado taxpayers already fund specialized courts (e.g., probate, juvenile) that they may never personally use.40 Finally, by relieving general district courts of the burden of slow and complex commercial litigation, a body of specialized judges would empower their colleagues to decide other cases (e.g., personal injury, construction, criminal) more efficiently and thereby benefit everyone engaged with the judicial system.41

Another critique is that business courts isolate their judges and legal subject matter from the remainder of the judiciary and other areas of law.42 This argument, however, provides no justification for the presumption that judicial specialization is problematic rather than beneficial.43 Moreover, existing business court models have found ways to mitigate this problem.44 Opponents also object that business courts create an elitist two-tiered court system where businesses enjoy preferential treatment and judges who may be biased in their favor against nonbusiness litigants.45 As noted above, however, business courts benefit all litigants, and the experience of jurisdictions with established business courts has allayed fears of bias.46

Critics rightly point out that states other than Delaware do not have the tax structure to realize significant financial benefits from increased incorporation business, making incorporations a weak motivation for establishing business courts.47 Yet a properly designed business court can make a state more attractive for businesses to headquarter and operate, which does offer real economic benefits.48

The final common response to proposed business courts is that they simply are not needed. Alternative dispute resolution, federal courts, and state courts of general jurisdiction are fully capable of resolving commercial disputes.49 Alternative dispute resolution, however, is hardly less expensive or time-consuming than traditional litigation, and its confidential nature means that it cannot produce the consistent precedent that is one benefit of business courts.50 Moreover, federal courts do not always have jurisdiction where a business court would.51 And, as noted above, general dockets benefit from the elimination of slow and burdensome business cases.

Conclusion

“As a testament to specialized business courts’ value, nearly all business courts that started as pilot projects have become full-time fixtures in state judicial systems.”52 Despite the arguments of naysayers, it appears many states are deriving significant benefits from expanding the number and caseloads of these specialized courts.53 Yet Colorado continues to randomly assign its complex commercial and business cases to judges who may or may not have any experience in this unique area of the law. If Colorado hopes to build a stable body of corporate jurisprudence, we have a lot of work to do. To position Colorado as “the best place to launch and grow a business,” our judicial system must function more effectively.

As I See It is a forum for expression of ideas on the law, the legal profession, and the administration of justice. The statements and opinions expressed are those of the authors, and no endorsement of these views by the CBA should be inferred.

Daniel W. Glasser is the founder and managing member of BCR Law Partners, LLC (f/k/a Chipman Glasser, LLC), and has more than two decades of trial and appellate experience focused on resolving business conflicts. He regularly guides clients through dissolution proceedings and other conflicts arising from the breakdown of closely held business relationships. Mark Walker is senior paralegal with BCR Law Partners, LLC and has over 15 years of experience supporting litigation in multiple fields of law. Coordinating Editor: Joel Pratt, joel@joelmprattlaw.com.

Explore This Issue

Notes

1. “Governor Polis Delivers Keynote Address at Colorado Chamber of Commerce Annual Meeting” (Oct. 17, 2024), https://governorsoffice.colorado.gov/governor/news/governor-polis-delivers-keynote-address-colorado-chamber-commerce-annual-meeting.

2. Sullivan, “Texas Business Court Can Learn a Few Lessons From Other States,” US Law Week (June 7, 2024), https://news.bloomberglaw.com/us-law-week/texas-business-court-can-learn-a-few-lessons-from-other-states; Zeve and Shuchart, “Texas Business Courts: What You Need to Know,” White & Case (Sept. 9, 2024), https://www.whitecase.com/insight-alert/texas-business-courts-what-you-need-know; Johnson et al., “The Wild, Wild West of Corporate Litigation: Will Texas Unseat Delaware as the Preferred Forum for Business Disputes?” 4(3) J. of Emerging Issues in Litig. 203, 204–17 (Summer 2004), https://btlaw.com/-/media/files/articles/journal-of-emerging-issues-in-litigation-the-wild-wild-west-of-corporate-litigation-will-texas-unsea.ashx.

3. Cottrell et al., “Special Committee on Superior Court Business/Complex Litigation: Report and Recommendations” (June 2, 2009), https://businesscourtsblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/Delaware-2009-01545780xB05D9.pdf; Cochran et al., “Delaware’s Business Courts: The Complementary Nature of the Court of Chancery and the Superior Court’s Complex Commercial Litigation Division,” Richards, Layton & Finger, https://www.rlf.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/10482_CMC-Delawares-Business-Courts.pdf; “Litigation in the Delaware Court of Chancery and the Delaware Supreme Court,” Delaware Corporate Law, https://corplaw.delaware.gov/delaware-court-chancery-supreme-court; “Why Delaware Corporate Law Matters So Much,” Harvard Business Services, Inc. (Dec. 11, 2023), https://www.delawareinc.com/blog/why-delaware-corporate-law-matters-so-much; Dugan and Kirk, “The Delaware Court of Chancery is Essential to the First State: Here’s Why,” Delaware Online (June 9, 2023), https://www.delawareonline.com/story/opinion/columnists/2023/06/09/delaware-court-of-chancery-remains-essential-to-delaware/70281796007.

4. “Report of the Committee on Business Courts,” Business Courts Blog (2000), https://www.businesscourtsblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/2000-report-01583491xB05D9.pdf.

5. Id. at 11–15.

6. Mullarkey, “State of the Judiciary” (Jan. 12, 2001), https://spl.cde.state.co.us/artemis/scserials/sc11internet/sc112001internet.pdf. See also Cottrell, supra note 3 at 29–33; Bach and Applebaum, “A History of the Creation and Jurisdiction of Business Courts in the Last Decade,” 60(1) Bus. Law. 147, 199–200 (Nov. 2004), https://www.businesscourtsblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/00321795.pdf.

7. “A History and Overview of the Colorado Civil Access Pilot Project Applicable to Business Actions in District Court,” Colorado Judicial Branch (July 2023), https://www.coloradojudicial.gov/sites/default/files/2023-07/CAPP%20Overview%20R8%2014%20%28FINAL%29.pdf.

8. Gerety and Cornett, “Momentum for Change: The Impact of the Colorado Civil Access Pilot Project,” Institute for the Advancement of the American Legal System (Oct. 2014), https://iaals.du.edu/sites/default/files/documents/publications/momentum_for_change_capp_final_report.pdf.

9. “The Case for Specialized Business Courts in Texas,” Texans for Lawsuit Reform Foundation (2023), https://tlrfoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/TLR-Foundation_BusinessCourts_2023-1.pdf. See also Applebaum et al., “Through the Decades: The Development of Business Courts in the United States of America,” 75 Bus. Law. 2053, 2061–71 (Summer 2020), https://www.eckertseamans.com/app/uploads/Bach_The_Business_Lawyer_July-2020.pdf; Parsons and Slights, “The History of Delaware’s Business Courts: Their Rise to Preeminence,” Morris James, https://www.morrisjames.com/assets/htmldocuments/History%20of%20Delaware%20Business%20Courts.pdf; “The Benefits of the Commercial Division to the State of New York,” Commercial Division Advisory Council at 4–5, https://www.nycourts.gov/LegacyPDFS/courts/comdiv/PDFs/TheBenefitsoftheCommercialDivisiontotheStateofNewYork.pdf; Coyle, “Business Courts and Interstate Competition,” 53(6) Wm. & Mary L. Rev. 1915, 1918 (May 2012), https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3438&context=wmlr; Norman and Burningham, “Recent Developments in Business Courts 2024,” Bus. L. Today (Mar. 7, 2024), https://www.americanbar.org/groups/business_law/resources/business-law-today/2024-march/recent-developments-business-courts-2024; Bach and Applebaum, supra note 6 at 154.

10. Sullivan, supra note 2; Zeve and Shuchart, supra note 2; Johnson, supra note 2 at 204–06; Moorhead, “Business Courts: Their Advantages, Implementation Strategies, and Indiana’s Pursuit of Its Own,” 50 Ind. L. Rev. 397 (2016), https://mckinneylaw.iu.edu/practice/law-reviews/ilr/pdf/vol50p397.pdf; Applebaum, supra note 9 at 2054.

11. “The Case for Specialized Business Courts in Texas,” supra note 9 at 5–6; Doerr, “Original Jurisdiction: How NC’s Business Court Became a Model of Its Own,” Robinson Bradshaw 42, 43 (2015), https://www.robinsonbradshaw.com/media/news/622_Doerr%20BNC%20article.pdf; “Iowa Business Specialty Court Report: Calendar Years 2022–2023,” Iowa Judicial Branch at 1–2, https://www.iowacourts.gov/static/media/cms/Business_Court_Report_CY2223__FINAL_A822F47370611.pdf; Tucker, “Making a Case for Business Courts: A Survey of and Proposed Framework to Evaluate Business Courts,” 24(2) Ga. St. U. L. Rev. 477, 478 (Winter 2007), https://gsulawreview.org/api/v1/articles/16323-making-a-case-for-business-courts-a-survey-of-and-proposed-framework-to-evaluate-business-courts.pdf; Jones, “Toward a Stronger Economic Future for North Carolina: Precedent and the Opinions of the North Carolina Business Court,” 6 Elon L. Rev. 189, 199; “Report of the Committee on Business Courts,” supra note 4 at 13; Burningham, “Open for Business: Chancery Court Goes Live on December 1, 2021,” Wyo. Law. 16, 17 (Oct. 2021), https://digitaleditions.walsworth.com/publication/?m=10085&i=724149&p=16&ver=html5; Bach and Applebaum, supra note 6 at 157, 164–65, 167–68, 181, 188–89.

12. “The Case for Specialized Business Courts in Texas,” supra note 9 at 6; Naghepour, “Boom or Bust: Ensuring the Georgia State-Wide Business Court Fulfills Its Constitutional Promise,” 56(1) Ga. L. Rev. 423, 441 (2021), https://digitalcommons.law.uga.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1008&context=glr.

13. “The Case for Specialized Business Courts in Texas,” supra note 9 at 7–8; Applebaum, supra note 9 at 2055–56; Jones, supra note 11 at 199–200; Naghepour, supra note 12 at 429; Tucker, supra note 11 at 505–11, 515; Johnson, supra note 2 at 206–07; Bach and Applebaum, supra note 6 at 181, 223–28.

14. “The Case for Specialized Business Courts in Texas,” supra note 9 at 5; Perkins and Blanch, “Utah Businesses Get Their Own Court,” Utah Business (May 3, 2023), https://www.utahbusiness.com/industry/2023/05/03/utah-businesses-get-their-own-court; Naghepour, supra note 12 at 441–42; Johnson, supra note 2 at 204; Burningham, supra note 11 at 17.

15. “The Case for Specialized Business Courts in Texas,” supra note 9 at 8–9; Jones, supra note 11 at 199; Moorhead, supra note 10 at 401; Zeve and Shuchart, supra note 2; Johnson, supra note 2 at 205, 209; Renk and Wrobel, “Lessons Learned: What Can the New Texas Business Court Learn From the Experiences of Its Sister States?” Duane Morris (Spring 2024), https://www.duanemorris.com/articles/what_can_new_texas_business_courts_learn_from_experiences_sister _states _0424.html.

16. “The Case for Specialized Business Courts in Texas,” supra note 9 at 9; Tucker, supra note 11 at 478; Zeve and Shuchart, supra note 2; Johnson, supra note 2 at 205–06.

17. Moorhead, supra note 10 at 401; Perkins and Blanch, supra note 14; Parsons and Slights, supra note 9.

18. Parsons and Slights, supra note 9.

19. Perkins and Blanch, supra note 14; Johnson, supra note 2 at 206, 208; Naghepour, supra note 12 at 434–35; Parsons and Slights, supra note 9.

20. Tucker, supra note 11 at 521; Perkins and Blanch, supra note 14; “The Case for Specialized Business Courts in Texas,” supra note 9 at 9–10; Moorhead, supra note 10 at 402; Applebaum, supra note 9 at 2060; Zeve and Shuchart, supra note 2; Johnson, supra note 2 at 206; Renk and Wrobel, supra note 15; Parsons and Slights, supra note 9; Bach and Applebaum, supra note 6 at 168.

21. Jones, supra note 11 at 201. See also Johnson, supra note 2 at 206.

22. Tucker, supra note 11 at 479. See also Naghepour, supra note 12 at 428; “Iowa Business Specialty Court Report,” supra note 11 at 1; Burningham, supra note 11 at 18; Bach and Applebaum, supra note 6 at 184.

23. See Jones, supra note 11 at 196–97; Moorhead, supra note 10 at 398; Perkins and Blanch, supra note 14; “The Case for Specialized Business Courts in Texas,” supra note 9 at 13; Sponaugle and Reed, “What Is the Delaware Court of Chancery?,” Harvard Business Services, Inc. (June 19, 2023), https://www.delawareinc.com/blog/what-is-the-delaware-court-of-chancery; Egan, “The Missing Link to More Texas Entities,” 79(2) Tex. L.J. 98 (Feb. 2016), https://www.texasbar.com/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Past_Issues&Template=/CM/ContentDisplay.cfm&ContentID=32485; “The Benefits of the Commercial Division to the State of New York,” supra note 9 at 1–3; Moorhead, supra note 10 at 402.

24. Egan, supra note 23 at 98; Dammann, “Business Courts and Firm Performance,” University of Texas Law at 4 (Sept. 17, 2017), https://ssrn.com/abstract=2889898.

25. Doerr, supra note 11 at 42–44; Dammann, supra note 24 at 4; Bergal, “States Set Up ‘Business Courts’ for Corporate Conflicts,” Governing (Oct. 28, 2015), https://www.governing.com/archive/business-courts-take-on-complex-corporate-conflicts.html.

26. See Dammann, supra note 24 at 13–15. Dammann found a 5% to 7% increase in Tobin’s q associated with the creation of a business court, along with other beneficial effects.

27. “The Benefits of the Commercial Division to the State of New York,” supra note 9 at 3; Bach and Applebaum, supra note 6 at 158.

28. Tucker, supra note 11 at 484–87; Moorhead, supra note 10 at 400–01; “The Case for Specialized Business Courts in Texas,” supra note 9 at 13–14; Naghepour, supra note 12 at 433–34; Doerr, supra note 11 at 45; Zeve and Shuchart, supra note 2; Johnson, supra note 2 at 210; “Report of the Committee on Business Courts,” supra note 4 at 14; Parsons and Slights, supra note 9; Burningham, supra note 11 at 18; Bach and Applebaum, supra note 6 at 158–59.

29. Tucker, supra note 11 at 487–90; Jones, supra note 11 at 197; Moorhead, supra note 10 at 402; Perkins and Blanch, supra note 14; “The Case for Specialized Business Courts in Texas,” supra note 9 at 14; Naghepour, supra note 12 at 438; “Iowa Business Specialty Court Report,” supra note 11 at 1; “Report of the Committee on Business Courts,” supra note 4 at 14–15; “Litigation in the Delaware Court of Chancery and the Delaware Supreme Court,” supra note 3; Parsons and Slights, supra note 9; Burningham, supra note 11 at 18; Greelish, “Delaware Chancery Court Review,” State of Connecticut Judicial Branch: Court Operations Unit at 4, https://www.cga.ct.gov/ba/CTLCBL/docs/Delaware%20Chancery%20Court%20Review%20and%20Connecticut%20Business%20Caseload%20Study.pdf; “The Benefits of the Commercial Division to the State of New York,” supra note 9 at 4; Bach and Applebaum, supra note 6 at 158.

30. Zeve and Shuchart, supra note 2; “Why Delaware Corporate Law Matters So Much,” supra note 3; Bach and Applebaum, supra note 6 at 170.

31. “The Case for Specialized Business Courts in Texas,” supra note 9 at 15; Coyle, supra note 9 at 1921.

32. Moorhead, supra note 10 at 400; “The Benefits of the Commercial Division to the State of New York,” supra note 9 at 3–4; Bach and Applebaum, supra note 6 at 163–65.

33. “Report of the Committee on Business Courts,” supra note 4 at 14. See also Bach and Applebaum, supra note 6 at 154.

34. “Business Court: 2012 Annual Report,” Fulton County Superior Court at 4.

35. “Iowa Business Specialty Court Report,” supra note 11 at 5.

36. Id. at 4.

37. Id. See also Bach and Applebaum, supra note 6 at 182–83 (documenting similar positive response to Boston’s Business Litigation Session).

38. “The Benefits of the Commercial Division to the State of New York,” supra note 9 at 1. See also Dammann, supra note 24 at 13–15; “Why Businesses Choose Delaware,” Delaware Corporate Law, https://corplaw.delaware.gov/why-businesses-choose-delaware; Dugan and Kirk, supra note 3; Fourlas, “Strictly Business: Could a Commerce Court Make Pennsylvania a Corporate Magnet?” McNees (Feb. 17, 2016), https://www.mcneeslaw.com/strictly-business-commerce-court-make-pennsylvania-corporate-magnet; Parsons and Slights, supra note 9; “Why Delaware Corporate Law Matters So Much,” supra note 3; Greelish, supra note 29 at 3–4. Contra Coyle, supra note 9.

39. “The Case for Specialized Business Courts in Texas,” supra note 9 at 14; Chamberlain, “An Unconstitutional Money-Wasting Proposal,” 79(2) Tex. L.J. 99 (Feb. 2016), https://www.texasbar.com/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Past_Issues&Template=/CM/ContentDisplay.cfm&ContentID=32485.

40. Junge, “Business Courts: Efficient Justice or Two-Tiered Elitism?,” 24(2) Wm. Mitchell L. Rev. 315, 316 (1998), https://open.mitchellhamline.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=1952&context=wmlr; “The Case for Specialized Business Courts in Texas,” supra note 9 at 14. See CRS §§ 13-8-103, 13-9-103.

41. Tucker, supra note 11 at 486, 494; Junge, supra note 40 at 316–17; “Report of the Committee on Business Courts,” supra note 4 at 13–15; Perkins and Blanch, supra note 14; Burningham, supra note 11 at 18.

42. Tucker, supra note 11 at 496–97.

43. Id. at 496–97; Moorhead, supra note 10 at 405–06; “The Case for Specialized Business Courts in Texas,” supra note 9 at 14.

44. Moorhead, supra note 10 at 405–06; “Tucker, supra note 11 at 497.

45. “The Case for Specialized Business Courts in Texas,” supra note 9 at 15; Moorhead, supra note 10 at 404–06; “Tucker, supra note 11 at 493–96; Junge, supra note 40 at 315, 318; Bergal, supra note 25.

46. Moorhead, supra note 10 at 404–06; Tucker, supra note 11 at 494–96.

47. See Kahan and Kamar, “The Myth of State Competition in Corporate Law,” 55 Stan. L. Rev. 679 (Dec. 2002); Coyle, supra note 9.

48. Contra Coyle, supra note 9.

49. “The Case for Specialized Business Courts in Texas,” supra note 9 at 15; Junge, supra note 40 at 320; Chamberlain, supra note 39; Bergal, supra note 25.

50. “The Case for Specialized Business Courts in Texas,” supra note 9 at 15; “Report of the Committee on Business Courts,” supra note 4. See also Bach and Applebaum, supra note 6 at 183 (majority of attorneys found Boston’s Business Litigation Session preferable to ADR and would recommend it to clients over ADR).

51. “The Case for Specialized Business Courts in Texas,” supra note 9 at 15.

52. Burningham, supra note 11 at 18.

53. “Iowa Business Specialty Court Report,” supra note 11 at 2 (noting a nearly 600% increase in annual business court case volume over the first 10 calendar years of operation). See also Norman and Burningham, supra note 9; Bach and Applebaum, supra note 6 at 163–64, 183.