American International Holdings Corporation, Jacob Cohen, and Everett R. Bassie v. Robert Holden, 14-20-00413-CV

Holden sued AMIH (and later added Cohen and Bassie) for declaratory judgment, breach of contract, conversion, and fraud after alleging he was promised and awarded 3.8 million AMIH shares and CEO/president roles.
Holden alleges the award and appointment were memorialized in meeting minutes and SEC Form 8-K filings; he later resigned and claims AMIH blocked his ability to trade the shares and diluted their value by issuing millions more.
Appellants moved to dismiss under the Texas Citizens Participation Act (TCPA), arguing Holden’s claims were based on public communications (Form 8-Ks) and thus subject to TCPA dismissal.
The trial court overruled Holden’s objections (including timeliness) and denied the TCPA motions; appellants appealed interlocutorily.
The court reviewed de novo whether the TCPA applied and held the claims rest on alleged contractual and conversion conduct, not on protected communications; the TCPA therefore does not apply.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the TCPA applies to Holden's declaratory-judgment, breach-of-contract, and conversion claims	Holden: claims are based on an alleged agreement and defendants' conduct denying his shares/trading rights; Form 8-Ks are evidentiary, not the basis for the claims	Appellants: claims are based on or in response to Form 8-K communications concerning a matter of public concern (securities/SEC filings) and thus invoke the TCPA	The TCPA does not apply; claims are based on conduct/contract rights, not protected communications. Trial court's denial of TCPA motions affirmed

In re Lipsky, 460 S.W.3d 579 (Tex. 2015) (explaining TCPA's purpose to protect rights of free speech and petition and to deter meritless chill-suits)
Youngkin v. Hines, 546 S.W.3d 675 (Tex. 2018) (TCPA statutory interpretation reviewed de novo)
Creative Oil & Gas, LLC v. Lona Hills Ranch, LLC, 591 S.W.3d 127 (Tex. 2019) (describing TCPA three-step framework)
Hersh v. Tatum, 526 S.W.3d 462 (Tex. 2017) (pleadings can sometimes show a claim is based on protected communication)
Adams v. Starside Custom Builders, LLC, 547 S.W.3d 890 (Tex. 2018) (TCPA construed liberally to effectuate its purpose)
Clinical Pathology Labs, Inc. v. Polo, 632 S.W.3d 35 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2020, pet. denied) (distinguishing communications used as evidence from claims predicated on communications)
Mireskandari v. Casey, 636 S.W.3d 727 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2021) (noting statutory amendment narrowing section 27.005(b) by removing "relates to" language)