P managed publicly traded real estate investment trusts in which it also owned stock, including American Realty Trust, Inc. ('ART') and Transcontinental Realty Investors, Inc. ('TCI'). D agreed to loan three companies owned by TCI, $37 million to acquire and rehabilitate three commercial buildings - one each - in New Orleans if P would propose other acceptable SABREs to borrow $160 million over a two-year period. The agreements were eventually formalized in letters. The $160 million commitment was between P and D. It also stated that each borrower would be a 'Single Asset, Bankruptcy Remote Borrowing Entity acceptable to Lender.' The SABREs would be owned by ART or TCI. D stressed, 'the two transactions [were] intertwined.' D loaned TCI's three SABREs the money to acquire the New Orleans buildings and funded a $6 million loan presented by P under the Commitment. But then market interest rates rose, making the terms of the Commitment unfavorable to D. D refused to provide further funding for improvements to the New Orleans buildings or to make any other loans under the Commitment. P sued D for breach of the Commitment. ART and TCI alleged that they 'were intended beneficiaries of the $160 million Commitment because their wholly owned subsidiaries would own the properties and borrow the funds advanced by D under the commitment.' D claimed ART and TCI 'lack[ed] standing to assert claims under the alleged $160 million loan commitment'. The trial court issued an order in limine forbidding reference to the standing arguments before the jury. The jury found that D breached the Commitment, resulting in $256,233.25 lost profits for Basic, $25,367,090 lost profits for ART and TCI, and $2,183,287 increased costs in obtaining alternate financing for ART and TCI. The jury also found that TCI lost $252,577 in profits as a result of D's breach of the New Orleans Agreement. D moved for judgment notwithstanding the verdict. The trial court granted the motion and rendered a take-nothing judgment for D. Ps appealed and the court of appeals found that ART and TCI were not third-party beneficiaries of the Commitment, nor TCI of the New Orleans Agreement. The Supreme Court of Texas granted review.

This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.