McLane Champions, LLC and R. Drayton McLane, Jr. v. Houston Baseball Partners LLC, 671 S.W.3d 907

In 2011 Houston Baseball Partners LLC (Partners) agreed to buy the Houston Astros from McLane Champions, LLC (Champions) for over $615 million; Partners soon assigned purchase-rights to a subsidiary (Holdings) but remained a Seller Indemnified Party under the agreement.
The sale included the Astros’ interest in a new regional sports network formed with the Rockets and Comcast; Comcast invested $157.5 million and the business plan relied on affiliate-fee rates Comcast purportedly proposed and endorsed.
Partners alleges Champions (via Allen & Company) and a Comcast executive represented that Comcast had proposed and believed the affiliate rates were market-clearing and achievable, which induced Partners to pay the purchase price.
After launch, the Network signed few carriage deals and at much lower affiliate rates; the Network collapsed in 2012 and Partners later alleges Comcast admitted it always doubted the business plan and that the Astros/Rockets, not Comcast, proposed the rates.
Partners sued for fraud, negligent misrepresentation, civil conspiracy, and breach of contract. Champions moved to dismiss under the Texas Citizens Participation Act (TCPA) and challenged standing; the trial court denied dismissal, the court of appeals affirmed (assuming TCPA applied), and the Texas Supreme Court granted review.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Standing to sue	Partners suffered a concrete pocketbook injury and has constitutional standing despite assigning contractual rights	Assignment to Holdings strips Partners of standing and jurisdiction	Partners has constitutional standing; assignment raises capacity/merits issues, not jurisdictional standing
TCPA — Free Speech (communications "in connection with a matter of public concern")	Communications were private, made in an arm’s-length sale negotiation and not tied to a public audience	Statements about the Astros/Network implicate public interest and thus fall within the TCPA	Communications were private valuation/price negotiations and lacked relevance to a public audience when made; TCPA free-speech protection does not apply
TCPA — Association (joining to pursue a "common interest")	Conduct did not implicate protected association rights	Champions joined with Comcast to further mutual business interests, which should be protected	"Common interest" under pre-2019 TCPA must relate to a matter of public concern; private business interests do not qualify
Prima facie burden to avoid TCPA dismissal	Partners says it presented clear and specific evidence of its claims	Champions says Partners failed to satisfy the TCPA evidentiary burden	Court did not address the merits of the evidentiary showing because TCPA does not apply; trial court’s denial of dismissal affirmed

Lippincott v. Whisenhunt, 462 S.W.3d 507 (Tex. 2015) (private communications can implicate TCPA where they relate to public health/safety or services in the marketplace)
ExxonMobil Pipeline Co. v. Coleman, 512 S.W.3d 895 (Tex. 2017) (internal company statements about safety/environmental risks related to a matter of public concern)
Creative Oil & Gas, LLC v. Lona Hills Ranch, LLC, 591 S.W.3d 127 (Tex. 2019) (communications about a private contract dispute among a limited business audience are not a matter of public concern)
Youngkin v. Hines, 546 S.W.3d 675 (Tex. 2018) (explaining TCPA’s purpose to protect speech on matters of public concern)
Pike v. Tex. EMC Mgmt., LLC, 610 S.W.3d 763 (Tex. 2020) (distinguishing constitutional standing from capacity to sue)
Data Foundry, Inc. v. City of Austin, 620 S.W.3d 692 (Tex. 2021) (plaintiff’s ability to prevail on the merits is distinct from constitutional standing)
Dall. Morning News, Inc. v. Hall, 579 S.W.3d 370 (Tex. 2019) (TCPA as protection against retaliatory lawsuits on matters of public concern)
Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc. v. Glyn-Jones, 878 S.W.2d 132 (Tex. 1994) (statutory interpretation principle: interpret words in context of whole statute)