here - FindLaw

case. On the other hand, a published case decided under Texas law could hold or state
in dicta that a more generous savings clause—such as one prohibiting application of
an amendment or termination to all claims, filed or unfiled, arising out of events that took
place before the amendment or termination—is the minimum necessary to prevent
an arbitration agreement from being illusory. But again, there is no such case.
I conclude that there is no conflict in Texas law and that we are consequently bound by
In re Kellogg Brown & Root, In re Champion Technologies, Inc., and Nabors Drilling.
Because the arbitration agreement in this case is enforceable and not illusory under
Texas law, the judgment should be affirmed. I therefore respectfully dissent.
ROTHSCHILD, J.
4