This site uses cookies to improve your experience. To help us insure we adhere to various privacy regulations, please select your country/region of residence. If you do not select a country, we will assume you are from the United States. Select your Cookie Settings or view our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Used for the proper function of the website
Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Strictly Necessary: Used for the proper function of the website
Performance/Analytics: Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
The “ LL&E II ” decision finds that Act 312 charges the court, not the jury, to determine the funding needed to remediate property to government standards. 3d — (“ LL&E II ”). [1]. Background of Legacy Litigation and LL&E I . LL&E II , at *2. In 2013, the decision in State of Louisiana v.
Louisiana Revised Statutes 30:103.1 have been heavily litigated in recent years, but there are only a handful of reported decisions interpreting these statutes. Many of these decisions involve whether a party complied with the strict notice requirements contained in the statutes. Kelly Land Company, L.L.C. Aethon Energy Operating, L.L.C. ,
The “ LL&E II ” decision finds that Act 312 charges the court, not the jury, to determine the funding needed to remediate property to government standards. 3d — (“ LL&E II ”). [1]. Background of Legacy Litigation and LL&E I . LL&E II , at *2. In 2013, the decision in State of Louisiana v.
On June 2, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit analyzed what constitutes a prima facie maritime claim sufficient to support attachment of property under Rule B of the Supplemental Rules of Admiralty of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Property of the defendant within the district is then subject to seizure. Bunge appealed.
The VIDA, enacted in December 2018, will standardize incidental discharge permits and regulations, replacing the 2013 Vessel General Permit (“VGP”) that commercial vessels are currently required to follow. It also requires the U.S. Coast Guard (“USCG”) to develop corresponding regulations to enforce compliance with the EPA’s standards.
2013); Plaisance v. In In re Deepwater Horizon , No. 20-30300, 2021 WL 96168, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeal held that fishermen who intentionally came upon the scene of the wreckage of the Deepwater Horizon failed to state a claim of negligent infliction of emotional distress under general maritime law.
In October 2013, Lexington Land filed a supplemental and amending lawsuit asserting its assigned claims against Chevron under both tort and contract theories. To finance the sale, lenders also required Lexington Land to hire a consultant to prepare environmental assessments of the property. Exxon Mobil Corporation , 2009-2368 (La.
2013), the Delaware Court of Chancery clarified that under Delaware law the privilege for pre-merger communications passes to the surviving company after a merger is consummated. In Great Hill Equity Partners IV, LP v. SIG Growth Equity Fund I, LLLP , 80 A.3d 3d 155 (Del. Last week, in S hareholder Representative Services LLC v.
213 (2012) and The ACREL Papers 121 (Spring 2013). A Lender in a real estate financing transaction often requires borrower’s counsel to opine on certain aspects of the transaction as a condition to the closing. The next report was the comprehensive The Real Estate Finance Opinion Report of 2012 published at 47 Real Prop. & Est. L.
2013); Plaisance v. In In re Deepwater Horizon , No. 20-30300, 2021 WL 96168, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeal held that fishermen who intentionally came upon the scene of the wreckage of the Deepwater Horizon failed to state a claim of negligent infliction of emotional distress under general maritime law.
In October 2013, Lexington Land filed a supplemental and amending lawsuit asserting its assigned claims against Chevron under both tort and contract theories. To finance the sale, lenders also required Lexington Land to hire a consultant to prepare environmental assessments of the property. Exxon Mobil Corporation , 2009-2368 (La.
In October 2013, Lexington Land filed a supplemental and amending lawsuit asserting its assigned claims against Chevron under both tort and contract theories. To finance the sale, lenders also required Lexington Land to hire a consultant to prepare environmental assessments of the property. Exxon Mobil Corporation , 2009-2368 (La.
Cormack, “The Grossman-Cormack Glossary of Technology Assisted Review,” 7 Fed. If used correctly, TAR can result in drastic savings for clients in document-intensive cases and provide more accurate results. However, as the use of TAR expands, practitioners must be mindful of the relevant ethical pitfalls that may ensue. See ABA Model Rue 1.1,
District Court Judge Dee Drell (Western District, LA) recently denied a motion to alter or amend the Court’s judgment against CITGO Petroleum Corp.– allowing an $81 million judgment against the oil company to stand. The judgment is the latest in a suit the EPA filed against CITGO under the Clean Water Act for a 2006 spill at the oil company’s St.
The second prelude to the recent Pennsylvania decision was a 2013 Federal District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia ruling in Stone v. The second prelude to the recent Pennsylvania decision was a 2013 Federal District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia ruling in Stone v. Chesapeake Appalachia, L.L.C. [4]
2013), to find that Unocal had an implied obligation under the Louisiana Civil Code to restore the land to its previous condition minus “normal wear and tear.” Louisiana Land & Exploration Co., million for a regulatory cleanup to the requisite state standards. million in private damages. Fifth Circuit jurisprudence. 3d 1038 (La.
That provides that the local law of the securities intermediary as specified in Section 8.110(e) governs that question. Commencing April 1, 2017, those lenders and their counsel may also have to consult the Hague Convention on the Law Applicable to Certain Rights in Respect of Securities Held with an Intermediary (the “Convention”). [1]
Eastland 2013, pet. (“Eagle”) regarding their agreement to jointly acquire and sell oil and gas leases. In the first, Eagle Oil & Gas Co. TRO-X, L.P. , 3d 137, 149 (Tex. In Eagle II , TRO-X alleged that Eagle failed to pay TRO-X its share of income generated from production on the equitable interests.
Cormack, “The Grossman-Cormack Glossary of Technology Assisted Review,” 7 Fed. If used correctly, TAR can result in drastic savings for clients in document-intensive cases and provide more accurate results. However, as the use of TAR expands, practitioners must be mindful of the relevant ethical pitfalls that may ensue. Duty of Competence.
Amidst historically low oil prices and economic shutdowns, fossil fuel companies continue to defend against lawsuits brought by state and local governments claiming climate-change related damages. 1442(a)(1). In City of Oakland et al. 1442(a)(1). 1442(a)(1).
In a case sure to be used as a sword by many defendants in the prevalent NORM (naturally occurring radioactive material) litigation in Louisiana and elsewhere, Patricia Lennie, et al. Exxon Mobil Corporation, et al., In doing so, the Fifth Circuit distinguished a prior case, Lester v. Exxon Mobil Corp., 10-743 (La. 5/31/12), 102 So.3d
Eastland 2013, pet. (“Eagle”) regarding their agreement to jointly acquire and sell oil and gas leases. In the first, Eagle Oil & Gas Co. TRO-X, L.P. , 3d 137, 149 (Tex. In Eagle II , TRO-X alleged that Eagle failed to pay TRO-X its share of income generated from production on the equitable interests.
We organize all of the trending information in your field so you don't have to. Join 5,000+ users and stay up to date on the latest articles your peers are reading.
You know about us, now we want to get to know you!
Let's personalize your content
Let's get even more personalized
We recognize your account from another site in our network, please click 'Send Email' below to continue with verifying your account and setting a password.
Let's personalize your content