Skip to main content

Fiberwave v. AT&T Enterprises

Tex. Bus. Ct.January 8, 2026No. 25-BC01A-0013

Case Details

Status
Published
Procedural Posture
summary judgment

Related Laws

No specific laws identified for this ruling.

Excerpt

Granting traditional and non-evidence summary judgment against Plaintiff's defamation claim because the complained-of statements are not objectively verifiable and therefore, as a matter of law, are not defamatory. Denying reconsideration of an order remanding the case back to district court on the grounds that the removal to business court was untimely. Denying permission to take a permissive interlocutory appeal of that order. This opinion addresses (i) whether the Property (Trust) Code bars a trustee from enforcing a punitive damages waiver; (ii) if not, whether the waiver in one bond financing contract applies to claims based on a related contract in the same financing; and (iii) whether a trustee owes continuing fiduciary duties to its beneficiaries once the trustee resigns and is replaced by a substitute trustee. The court concludes that (i) the punitive damages waiver is enforceable here because the Trust Code does not reflect a legislative intent to bar such waivers; (ii) the subject waiver applies to both contracts because they are integral parts of the same financing arrangement; and (iii) a terminated and replaced trustee must protect a former beneficiary's confidential information that the trustee obtained during the trust relationship. Granting Defendant's motion to strike untimely filed summary-judgment evidence. Granting in part and denying in part Defendant's Traditional and No-Evidence Motion for Summary Judgment. One plaintiff is not entitled to damages as a matter of law, is not entitled to lost revenue or production as a matter of law, has produced evidence of redesign costs and additional expenses incurred as a result of Defendant's breach, and the record contains evidence of that plaintiff's expectancy damages. While Plaintiffs do not allege a specific theory/category of reliance damages in their petition, the Court nonetheless addresses Defendant's argument and holds that the plaintiff has not produced evidence of reliance damages. This opinio

What This Ruling Means

**Fiberwave v. AT&T Enterprises: What Workers Need to Know** This case involved a dispute between Fiberwave and AT&T Enterprises that included claims about defamation—basically, one party accused the other of making false, damaging statements about them in an employment context. The court made several key decisions. First, it threw out the defamation claim, ruling that the statements in question were opinions rather than facts that could be proven true or false. Since defamation requires objectively false statements, opinion-based comments don't qualify. Second, the court sent the case back to a lower district court because it had been moved to business court too late in the process. The court also refused to allow an immediate appeal of this decision. For workers, this ruling highlights an important distinction about workplace defamation. Not every negative comment or criticism at work counts as defamation—only statements that can be proven factually false. Opinions, evaluations, or subjective assessments generally don't meet this standard, even if they damage someone's reputation. This means workers need to understand that while they may have protection against clearly false factual statements about their work performance or conduct, they have less legal recourse against negative opinions or subjective evaluations from employers or colleagues.

This summary was generated to explain the ruling in plain English and is not legal advice.

Facing something similar at work?

Court rulings like this one are useful, but every situation is different. Take 2 minutes to see which laws may protect you — it's free, private, and no account is required to start.

This ruling information is sourced from public court records via CourtListener.com. It is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.