The Energy Law

APRIL 19, 2021

Eastland 2013, pet. denied) (“ Eagle I ”), TRO-X alleged that Eagle deprived TRO-X of its right to acquire certain mineral interests upon the sale of several leases in violation of their agreement. (“Eagle”) regarding their agreement to jointly acquire and sell oil and gas leases. In the first, Eagle Oil & Gas Co. TRO-X, L.P. ,

Royalty 52

Royalty Exploration and Production IT Casing 52

The Energy Law

NOVEMBER 7, 2014

Recently, when there was talk about Houston-based ATP Oil and Gas’ (ATP) legal problems, it was inevitably about its bankruptcy and its effort to bring the overriding royalty interests it had conveyed back into the bankrupt estate as debt instruments. See United States v. ATP Oil & Gas Corp. , 955 F.Supp.2d 2d 616 (E.D.

Offshore 40

Offshore Exploration and Production Oil Government 40

The Energy Law

APRIL 19, 2021

Eastland 2013, pet. denied) (“ Eagle I ”), TRO-X alleged that Eagle deprived TRO-X of its right to acquire certain mineral interests upon the sale of several leases in violation of their agreement. (“Eagle”) regarding their agreement to jointly acquire and sell oil and gas leases. In the first, Eagle Oil & Gas Co. TRO-X, L.P. ,

Exploration and Production 40

Exploration and Production Royalty IT Oil 40