On July 29, 2026, Judge Brian Stagner of the Texas Business Court’s Eighth Division addressed when derived judicial immunity protects a court-appointed receiver from civil liability and whether that protection extends to special-purpose entities the receiver creates to carry out a court-ordered sale.
Gail Corder Fischer v. Clifford R. Fischer, et al. arose from a post-divorce enforcement proceeding in Dallas County. The district court appointed Michael Newman as receiver to facilitate the sale of certain business entities. While an appeal of the receivership order remained pending, and no stay was in place, Newman proceeded with the sale, ultimately executing an equity purchase agreement through two special-purpose entities he allegedly created: Fischer Seller, LP and Fischer Purchaser Holdings, LP.
After the sale closed, the Dallas Court of Appeals reversed and vacated the receivership order, concluding it exceeded the district court’s enforcement powers under the Texas Family Code. The plaintiff then brought suit against Newman and the two entities, asserting a variety of claims, including breach of fiduciary duty, fraud, civil conspiracy, and misappropriation of trade secrets.
The Court’s Holdings
Newman was entitled to dismissal. Some Texas courts have applied a functional approach to derived judicial immunity, asking whether the court officer was acting as an arm of the court performing a function comparable to that of the delegating judge. If immunity attaches, it covers actions taken with respect to the protected function, “whether good or bad, honest or dishonest, well-intentioned or not.” The plaintiff’s own pleadings tied every allegation — structuring the sale, selecting the buyer, allocating consideration, approving bonuses, and negotiating releases — directly to Newman’s role as receiver. Because the petition contained no allegation that Newman acted outside his receivership capacity, the court dismissed all claims against him with prejudice…