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
2023), in which it held that lessees owed royalties in excess of their gross proceeds, specifically “adding back” costs incurred by third-party buyers that were enumerated in the sales contract and subtracted from the sales price. The lessees owned working interests in certain oil and gas leases that were executed in 2007. 2d 118 (Tex.
12/19/07), the court addressed the payment of royalties and penalties under Mineral Code article 212.23(c) c) and concluded that plaintiff’s letters were insufficient to trigger the provisions of that article. Next, the court noted the dearth of reported cases involving Mineral Code articles 212.21-23 at *8 (citing La.
While 30:10 was amended during the 2022 legislative session, the amendment preserved the limited obligation of remitting the royalty and overriding royalty burdens to the nonparticipating owner for the benefit of the royalty and overriding royalty owners.
This article discusses a couple more cases in 2024. Travis Lattner, Jr., “a non-participating royalty of one-fourth (1/4th) of the landowner’s usual one-eighth (1/8th) royalty on oil and gas produced and saved from said land[.]” By way of background, in 1955 J.D. and Elva Arthur conveyed to W.
In the 1920s—the time the deed at issue was executed—lessors commonly reserved a one-eighth royaltyinterest when they executed oil and gas leases. In addition to the estate misconception theory, the Court analyzed the “legacy of the one-eighth royalty.” Dils Co. , 2d 904 (Tex.
This article summarizes the arguments made by the parties, and the Justices' questions and observations at the oral argument. This case presents two critical questions: Who owns subsurface caverns created by salt mining operations, and How should in-kind royalties be calculated for salt production? 3d 39 , 47 (Tex.
the Louisiana Second Circuit upheld a trial court’s ruling that the holder of a security interest in mineral leases was solidarily liable for damages under the Louisiana Mineral Code stemming from its mineral lessees/mortgagors’ actions. [1] in unpaid royalties and an additional double damages penalty of $484,058.52 4] $242,029.26
Factual and Procedural Background TRO-X and Eagle entered into an agreement to buy and sell certain leases, sharing the cash and mineral interest proceeds derived from such sales (the “Agreement”). When the suit went to trial, the leases subject to the Chesapeake sale had not generated any royalty income.
TRO-X and Eagle entered into an agreement to buy and sell certain leases, sharing the cash and mineral interest proceeds derived from such sales (the “Agreement”). When the suit went to trial, the leases subject to the Chesapeake sale had not generated any royalty income. The jury awarded TRO-X $7,680,000 in damages.
This article briefly describes four structured capital raising techniques that may be available to meet those needs: (1) convertible debt instruments; (2) convertible or non-convertible preferred equity instruments; (3) preferred limited partnership interests; and (4) debt instruments issued with “equity kickers”.
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.
98 
Let's personalize your content