capacity as an Isramco shareholder) shall be deemed to have, and by operation of the Judgment shall have, fully, finally, and forever released, relinquished and discharged each and all of the Plaintiffs and Plaintiffs' Counsel from all claims (including Unknown Claims) arising out of, relating to, or in connection with, the institution, prosecution, assertion, settlement or resolution of the Action or the Released Claims.” (emphasis added). 3 . The Judgment uses the same defined terms as are used in the Settlement Agreement. 4 . The Judgment contains language substantially similar to language from the Settlement Agreement quoted in footnote 2, above. 5 . See Tex. Bus. Orgs.Code Ann. §§ 21.552, 562 (West 2014); In re Helix Energy Solutions Group, Inc., No. 14-13- 1, 502-03 (Tex.2006) (<HOLDING>). 34 . See Tex. Ass’n of Bus., 852 S.W.2d at
holding that standing is component of subjectmatter jurisdiction and subjectmatter jurisdiction is essential to courts authority to hear case holding appealable district courts order dismissing for lack of subjectmatter jurisdiction due to determination of exclusive tribal court jurisdiction holding that declaring statute facially unconstitutional deprives trial court of subjectmatter jurisdiction holding that application of the exclusive remedies provision in tax code section 4209 deprives courts of subjectmatter jurisdiction holding that the remedies are exclusive