Tommy Barras, the former CEO and chairman of the Reynolds and Reynolds Company, filed a $300 million lawsuit against his former employer on May 20, 2025, claiming he was fired on a fabricated pretext so the company could avoid paying compensation owed under a ten-year employment contract. The Tommy Barras lawsuit was filed by the Buzbee Law Firm in the 333rd District Court of Harris County, Texas, and brings claims for breach of contract, wrongful termination, and tortious interference. As of early 2026, the case remains pending, with an appellate court already reshaping one piece of it.1
What Barras Is Claiming
According to the filing, Barras held a ten-year contract that provided a yearly salary, benefits, and a compensation package tied to the EBITDA of the Reynolds group of companies. He alleges the company invented a reason to fire him for cause so it would not have to pay out what the board had already approved.
The stated reason, according to the suit, was “inappropriate conduct that occurred close to four years prior.” Lead attorney Tony Buzbee called that justification “a fabrication by those with animus” toward Barras. The pleadings say Barras was terminated without warning after a “secret meeting with individuals outside of the company” and was escorted out of the office without explanation. The specific conduct the company pointed to has not been publicly detailed, and Reynolds and Reynolds does not appear to have addressed the reasons for the termination publicly.
Barras had spent nearly five decades at the company and its predecessor, Universal Computer Systems, which merged with Reynolds and Reynolds in 2006. He was chosen to lead the company after founder Robert “Bob” Brockman stepped down.
Who Else Is Named
Alongside Reynolds and Reynolds, Barras sued Frank Jackson, the general counsel of parent company Universal Computer Systems Holding, for tortious interference. Barras alleges Jackson “immersed himself” in company operations and influenced Dorothy Brockman, who allegedly controlled the parent company after Bob Brockman’s death, to fire Barras and install Jackson as the next CEO.
The Attorney Immunity Ruling That Paused Part of the Case
Jackson moved to dismiss the tortious interference claim under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 91a, arguing his conduct was protected by attorney immunity. The Texas Business Court denied that motion. Jackson then sought mandamus relief from Texas’s Fifteenth Court of Appeals, which ruled on February 23, 2026, in In re Frank Jackson, No. 15-25-00235-CV.
The appellate court granted the petition in part. Chief Justice Brister, writing for the majority, held that Jackson appeared likely to succeed on his immunity defense. The court framed the problem as a catch-22 for Barras: if Jackson’s conduct related to terminating the employment contract, it occurred in an “inherently adversarial context” and qualified as protected legal work; if it did not relate to the termination, Barras had not stated a viable claim for interference at all. Trial proceedings and discovery on the claims against Jackson were stayed while the mandamus petition is resolved.
Justice April Farris dissented. She wrote that the pleadings alleged Jackson acted as a business advisor, trustee, director, and potential CEO successor rather than strictly as a lawyer, and that attorney immunity does not shield conduct performed in a business capacity.
The Ownership Backdrop
Reynolds and Reynolds is a privately held company headquartered in Dayton, Ohio, whose products are used by 95% of franchised dealerships worldwide. It is owned through an offshore trust that Bob Brockman controlled, holding a 98% stake valued at roughly $3 billion. Brockman died on August 5, 2022, while awaiting trial on federal tax fraud charges. Who now controls the trust and the parent entity, Universal Computer Systems Holding, has not been clarified in public reporting, and that unresolved question sits behind Barras’s allegation that Dorothy Brockman and Jackson engineered his ouster.
A Separate Suit in the Background
About two months before Barras filed his own case, he was named as a defendant in a separate action. On March 27, 2025, Tate Group Automotive sued in the Houston Division of the Texas business court, seeking up to $150 million from Legacy Automotive Capital, Reynolds and Reynolds, Barras, and Legacy co-founder and CEO Benjamin Catanese. The suit stems from a failed deal to purchase three Houston-area dealerships and alleges the defendants violated a nondisclosure agreement and used confidential information to push Tate Group out of the transaction. Public reporting has not established a link between that suit and Barras’s termination, though the timing has raised questions about whether outside business activities factored into the for-cause decision.
Where the Case Stands
The breach of contract and wrongful termination claims against Reynolds and Reynolds remain pending in Business Court Division 11B of Harris County. The tortious interference claim against Jackson is effectively on hold under the Fifteenth Court of Appeals’ stay. No trial date, settlement, or resolution has been publicly reported. The day after Barras sued, Reynolds and Reynolds named longtime company president Chris Walsh acting CEO. The Tate Group Automotive suit, in which Barras is a co-defendant with Reynolds, Legacy Automotive Capital, and Catanese, also remains active.