Partner Jared Wilkinson earns place on companion Ones to Watch list  DALLAS – Trial attorneys Clayton Bailey and Alex Brauer, co-founders of the law firm Bailey Brauer PLLC, have been selected to the 2027 edition of The Best Lawyers in America legal guide.  Mr. Bailey and Mr. Brauer were each recognized for excellence in commercial litigation, with Mr. Bailey also rated among the nation’s best in appellate law. Additionally, firm partner Jared Wilkinson was selected to the companion Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch in America guide for commercial litigation and appellate work.   A nationally recognized trial and appellate attorney, Mr. Bailey represents clients throughout the country in matters involving contract disputes, business torts, RICO, employment law, trade secrets, deceptive trade practices, fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, antitrust, unfair business practices, and the Packers and Stockyards Act. This is his 10th Best Lawyers selection. He has also earned Benchmark Litigation Local Litigation Star recognition for 12 consecutive years.   Mr. Brauer regularly represents clients in disputes involving allegations of fraud, deceptive practices, breaches of fiduciary duties, and breaches of non-compete agreements. He also represents clients in disputes involving the sales and purchases of businesses. This is his ninth Best Lawyers selection. His complex commercial litigation work has also been recognized by Chambers USA and Legal 500.   This is the third consecutive Ones to Watch selection for Mr. Wilkerson in recognition of his work on behalf of companies and individuals in class actions and multi-district litigation, corporate governance, shareholder litigation, and appellate matters in state and federal courts. A Litigation Counsel of America fellow, his work has also earned recognition from Texas Super Lawyers Rising Stars and Lawdragon.   Best Lawyers and Ones to Watch honors are based on peer evaluations and editorial evaluations of professional accomplishments.   About Bailey Brauer PLLC Bailey Brauer PLLC is nationally recognized for its trial and appellate work and provides battle-tested, sophisticated courtroom experience in high-stakes litigation matters. The firm focuses on complex commercial litigation, appeals and class actions.  Media Contact: Rhonda Reddick   800-559-4534    rhonda@androvett.com    

Texas Lawyer recently reached out to litigators including Bailey Brauer’s Jared Wilkinson to discuss their verdict on how the Texas Business Court has performed during its first 18 months of operation.   Mr. Wilkinson, who closely tracks the court's opinions, praised the consistency of the rulings, saying, "The judges are enforcing the language of the parties' agreement to give them the benefit of their bargain, good or bad. Whether you struck a good agreement or a bad one, they're enforcing your agreement."   Mr. Wilkinson also emphasized that the court is quickly and efficiently resolving the complex disputes on its docket, disposing of cases in a matter of months rather than years.   However, the court is still evolving, with issues including the lack of permanent, dedicated courtrooms in several divisions and other logistics still being sorted out. The impact of the two-year judicial term structure presents a “real-time test” for the court, as its original slate of judges is up for reappointment this September.   "Two years is not a very long term, which runs the risk of there being high turnover on the court," he said. "If you're a party considering filing and you know that a judge's appointment is up in six months, do you want to file in the business court? Do you want to have a new judge come in mid-case and have to get up to speed?"   Also, by September, the final six divisions of the court may have judges appointed and hearing cases, bringing the total number of Texas Business Courts to 11.   That expansion, paired with the lowered jurisdictional threshold, means the court's docket will likely keep growing, he explained, and with it, a test of whether the speed attorneys have praised can hold up at scale.  To read “The Texas Business Courts Are Working, Litigators Say, With a Few Caveats” visit Texas Lawyer (subscription required).

  by Jared Wilkinson In Galderma Labs., L.P. v. Brenner, 2026 WL 703379 (Tex. Bus. Ct. Mar. 12, 2026), the Business Court was presented with a scenario that most companies have experienced: an employee leaves the company and begins working for a direct competitor. In this case, Brenner was a high-ranking official who oversaw Galderma’s injectable aesthetics division and later served as the interim Head of the United States. As part of his employment, Brenner entered into a Protective Covenants Agreement containing noncompete, customer nonsolicit, employee nonsolicit, and confidentiality obligations. The agreement was supported by consideration including incentive compensation and access to confidential information. Within months of his departure from Galderma, Brenner became CEO of Prollenium, a company in direct competition with Galderma in the injectable aesthetics market. Galderma sued Brenner and sought broad injunctive relief, asserting breaches of the restrictive covenants and misappropriation of trade secrets under the Texas Uniform Trade Secrets Act (“TUTSA”). Based on the evidence presented, Judge Stagner (Texas Business Court – Eighth Division) enforced the noncompete in narrowed form, but declined to enforce the other covenants or grant relief under TUTSA. The Court’s Key Holdings 1. Noncompete enforced – but only as reformed The Court found the Galderma noncompete was likely enforceable because it was ancillary to an otherwise enforceable agreement and contained reasonable limitations as to time, scope, and activity (after reformation). The Court also focused on the similarity of Brenner’s former role and his new role in the same “narrowly defined market” to find that his new role as CEO of a direct competitor fell “squarely within the competitive activity the covenant [was] designed to restrict.” The Court accordingly found a probable right of recovery and enforced the

Recently recognized among the Lawdragon 500 Leading Litigators in America for his commercial litigation work, Bailey Brauer co-founder Clayton Bailey is featured in a special in-depth Lawdragon profile. The “Lawyer Limelight” series offers a personal look at the nation’s leading lawyers. Mr. Bailey relates growing up in Southern California, what led him to the practice of law and the development of his agriculture-facing practice. He also details his current work as national COVID-19 litigation and appellate counsel for several of the world’s largest meat companies. “The personal tragedies resulting from the pandemic require an especially deft legal touch, starting with the understanding that the families of meat and poultry processing plant workers who lost their lives deserve the utmost respect and dignity,” he tells Lawdragon, adding that the cases that have arisen since the onset of the pandemic have sparked legal issues that have not been seen before and require a unique approach. To read the full interview, visit: https://www.lawdragon.com/lawyer-limelights/2022-10-24-lawyer-limelight-clayton-bailey. In addition to his Leading Litigators honor, Mr. Bailey also previously was selected to Lawdragon’s guide to the Leading Plaintiff Financial Lawyers based on his antitrust work.

As seems to happen during every presidential election cycle, the USDA is again considering another round of proposed regulations under the Packers and Stockyards Act (PSA.) However, explains Bailey Brauer co-founder Clayton Bailey in a recent Meatingplace blog post, additional regulations are not prudent. Meatingplace is the premier news source for the U.S. and Canadian red meat and poultry processing industries. “While government insiders are the only ones who know what the proposed regulations will say, many are hoping the Trump administration continues its cautious approach to restricting how the industry operates,” he wrote in “USDA Should Use Caution When Proposing Meat Industry Rules.” That sentiment is based in large part on the belief that the PSA, as well as state laws, already provide enough safeguards to sufficiently protect contract producers. “Anyone who has worked in the trenches of PSA lawsuits has seen a broad array of issues that arise in the industry. And nearly every legitimate complaint – from animal quality to grower association membership to alleged company misrepresentation – falls within the laws of the state where the grower’s farm is located. “Depending on the facts and where the events occurs, there may be other state law claims available to protect a producer,” according to Mr. Bailey. “The PSA is a different animal. It is an antitrust statute enacted into federal law in 1921 that addresses conduct that harms competition, such as price fixing, group boycotts, or the division of markets.” “Nearly every initial lawsuit filed by a producer asserts a PSA claim along with state claims. And by the end of nearly every case, those claims that have the most legal support usually are state law claims because the PSA does not