See Tex. Ass’n of Bus., 852 S.W.2d at 445-46; Schwartzott, 403 S.W.3d at 498 n. 4; Trojacek, 2009 WL 909591, at *3; Somers, 295 S.W.3d at 8, 10, 13; Saudi, 176 S.W.3d at 113. The dissenting justice states that, under Dubai Petroleum Company v. Kazi, the failure to establish a statutory prerequisite to suit is not a jurisdictional defect but instead goes to the right of the plaintiff to relief. See post at p. 836 (citing Dubai Petroleum Company v. Kazi, 12 S.W.3d 71, 76-77 (Tex.2000)). Though the Kazi case is an important precedent in Texas jurisprudence, the dissenting justice overstates the scope of the Kazi court’s holding. In Kazi, the Supreme Court of Texas abrogated a line of cases holding that, when a claim is based on a statute, the Foundation, 315 S.W.3d 519, 522-23 (Tex.2010) (<HOLDING>); In re Derzapf 219 S.W.3d 327, 331-33
holding that preservation of error in the trial court is not necessary as to lack of standing holding that this lack of any reasonable expectation of continued employment suffices to establish the lack of property in the constitutional sense and hence the lack of a viable due process claim holding that courts lack jurisdiction to address merits of a claim where party raising the claim is found to lack standing to maintain suit holding that lack of justiciable interest resulted in lack of standing to pursue claim and that lack of standing deprived the trial court of jurisdiction to act holding that the lack of shareholder standing under texas law does not implicate constitutional standing