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 leases contained the following royalty provisions: 3. Sheppard , — S.W.3d NationsBank”, 939 S.W.2d
million judgment for reimbursement of mineral royalties. million in mineral royalties attributable to ownership of these banks. The Court distinguished those cases, pointing to constitutional and statutory provisions that mandate appropriation under those specific circumstances. 1/1/23), So.
Sheppard is a royalty dispute between several lessees, Devon Energy Production Co., concerning a novel royalty term that may have a huge impact on the way oil and gas royalties are paid in the future. The royalty clause at issue required the lessees to pay to the lessors 1/5th of the “gross proceeds” as a royalty.
The Texas Supreme Court is going to hear a case in which the issue is whether the interest to be paid on past due royalties is simple or compound interest. In the case of Samson Exploration, LLC v. Bordages, 662 S.W.3d 3d 501 (Tex. App.Beaumont 2022, pet.
Whether a royalty granted or reserved in a deed is a “fixed” or “floating” royalty has resulted in a lot of litigation in Texas. The Plaintiff sold land to a third party and reserved a 1/8 royalty nonparticipating royalty interest (fixed royalty language). ConocoPhillips Co.,
In a recent case, the Texas Supreme Court considered whether interest on late royalty payments was supposed to be simple or compound interest. When Samson paid previously unpaid royalties to the Plaintiff, it included simple interest. In Samson Exploration, LLC v. Bordages, 662 S.W.3d 3d 501, 2024 (Tex.
The Associated Press reported today that a federal jury found Kerr McGee liable for additional royalties on crude oil produced from federal properties and sold through Texon. Kerr McGee had denied the allegations and claimed that no additional royalties were owed. Kerr McGee has indicated that intends to appeal the verdict.
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.
In the 1920s—the time the deed at issue was executed—lessors commonly reserved a one-eighth royalty interest 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. Element Petroleum Props., 11-21-00103-CV (Tex.
With the prevalence of cases involving royalty disputes in Texas, the state’s Supreme Court has never hesitated to address these issues. But the Court’s sporadic holdings regarding royalty clauses, each so specific to the particular language of the lease, have left lessees on unsteady footing. Heritage Resources , 939 S.W.2d
While the Court is no stranger to interpreting (and often muddling) the familiar royalty clause interpretation questions surrounding the first issue, in a case of first impression, the Court also analyzed the breadth of a lease’s free-use clause. after deductions), resulting in lower royalty payments for the royalty owners.
In a straightforward application of Louisiana’s prescriptive principles, the Louisiana Court of Appeal for the Third Circuit affirmed the trial court’s grant of exceptions of prescription, finding plaintiff’s claims for fraud, under the Louisiana Unfair Trade Practices Act (LUTPA), and for unpaid royalties all prescribed in Karen May v.
Jan 12, 2024) concerns how three related provisions in an oil and gas lease interact: (1) a royalty clause; (2) a free-use clause; and (3) an off-lease clause. When parties to an oil and gas lease reserve royalties, they stipulate where those royalties are to be valued—sometimes referred to as the “valuation point”—in the royalty clause.
15, 2008), the Texas Supreme Court again addressed the propriety of class actions for gas royalty claims. The class affirmed the denial of two subclasses, but reversed the denial of a third subclass of royalty claimaints. Phillips Petroleum Co. , 03-0824 (Feb.
On September 2, 2016, the Texas Supreme Court agreed to review three oil and gas cases involving issues pertinent to the industry and land and mineral owners. is another top-lease case from the Amarillo Court of Appeals. BP America Production Company v. Red Deer Resources, LLC In BP America Production Company v. Laddex, Ltd.
The Miesch case, set for argument on February 13, is one of two related cases decided by the Corpus Christi Court of Appeals last year. The royalty owners intervened and asserted claims against Exxon for, among others, common law waste, statutory waste, negligence per se, tortious interference, and failure to develop.
When the dispute involves the nonpayment of royalties, the renewable energy lessee would be afforded 30 days to pay the royalties or respond in writing stating a reasonable cause for nonpayment (compare to La. Liskow & Lewis attorneys will be monitoring this bill through this legislative session.
In 2022, in a case decided by the Corpus Christi Court of Appeals , the issue was who owns the right to use underground salt caverns: the mineral owner or the surface owner? In this case, Myers-Woodward, LLC v. 30, 2024), the Court also considered how a salt royalty should be calculated. granted (Aug. granted (Aug. 2d 686 (Tex.
While the Court is no stranger to interpreting (and often muddling) the familiar royalty clause interpretation questions surrounding the first issue, in a case of first impression, the Court also analyzed the breadth of a lease’s free-use clause. after deductions), resulting in lower royalty payments for the royalty owners.
In a straightforward application of Louisiana’s prescriptive principles, the Louisiana Court of Appeal for the Third Circuit affirmed the trial court’s grant of exceptions of prescription, finding plaintiff’s claims for fraud, under the Louisiana Unfair Trade Practices Act (LUTPA), and for unpaid royalties all prescribed in Karen May v.
the Third Circuit addressed the question of whether or not a mineral lessee must pay its lessor full lease-basis royalties for production undertaken during the effective period of a conditional allowable but prior to the effective date of a unit order. [1] Anglo-Dutch Energy, L.L.C. , Anglo-Dutch Energy, L.L.C. , Anglo-Dutch Energy, L.L.C. ,
hands a victory to financiers of oil and gas operations and settles a long-running controversy over the amount of damages available for failure to pay mineral royalties. in unpaid royalties, plus an additional double damages penalty of $484,058.52. in unpaid royalties, plus an additional double damages penalty of $484,058.52.
Free-Use Clause and Further Interprets Conflicting Royalty Clause Provisions The Texas Supreme Court recently issued its anticipated decision in BlueStone Natural Resources II, LLC v. For almost a decade, the original lessee to the agreements never subtracted post-production costs from the royalty owners’ royalty payments.
10] Gloria’s Ranch amended its petition to include a claim for failure to pay royalties on production in Section 15 (from the unit well drilled by Chesapeake). 11] The trial court also found that defendants failed to pay royalties in Section 15 and awarded Gloria’s Ranch the royalties owed plus punitive damages. [12]
By using this blog site you understand and acknowledge that there is no attorney client relationship formed between you and Liskow & Lewis and/or the individual Liskow & Lewis lawyers posting to this site by virtue of your using this site. Tauren Exploration, Inc. , A detailed summary of that decision is available here.
12/19/07), the court addressed the payment of royalties and penalties under Mineral Code article 212.23(c) In exchange, the defendant agreed to transfer an overriding royalty interest in the subject prospect to the plaintiff in the event defendant acquired an interest in the prospect. In CLK Company, L.L.C. CXY Energy, Inc. ,
The 5-4 decision, authored by Justice Hecht, is the latest in a series of cases from high courts across the country addressing the sharing of “post-production costs” between royalty owners and oil and gas lessees. 14-0302 , was highly anticipated, but left many of us scratching our heads. NationsBank , 939 S.W.2d 2d 118 (Tex.
Earlier information about this case can be found here. *In By using this blog site you understand and acknowledge that there is no attorney client relationship formed between you and Liskow & Lewis and/or the individual Liskow & Lewis lawyers posting to this site by virtue of your using this site.
This new website combines the content you've come to trust from both our print newsletter (Producers Edge) and our former blog (OilandGasLawDigest.com) into one comprehensive online resource. To mark this launch, we're pleased to share our latest content: Vol. 2: Producers Edge - Fall 2024 Who Owns the Void?
—Tyler 5/5/2010), the Tyler Court of Appeals upheld a trial court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law with respect to the termination of an oil and gas lease for failure to pay shut-in royalty payments to the proper party. The case involved a dispute between the original lessee and a top lessee. In 1976, Karin H.
Faced with competing claims for royalty payments from the PPG and State of Louisiana, Chevron, as sublessee of the 1938 BLD lease, filed a petition for concursus and deposited royalty payments into the court registry. Ultimately, the Fourth Circuit affirmed the trial court’s finding that the State’s claims were barred by res judicata.
for a one-fourth (1/4) mineral royalty and as much as ten thousand ($10,000) dollars per acre bonus royalty.” In that case, the plaintiff-lessors argued, the lease should be rescinded based on their error. 9/22/10); 48 So. 3d 341, 342-43. Communications include firm news, insights, and events.
On June 17, 2016, the Texas Supreme Court ruled that an oil and gas producer (“Southwest”) was not entitled to a statutory exemption from sales taxes on its purchases of casing, tubing and pumps used in the production of oil and gas (the “Equipment”). At issue in Southwest Royalties, Inc.
By Jonathan Hunter: In a highly anticipated decision, the Tenth Circuit held this week that the district court had subject matter jurisdiction over a qui tam action filed by an MMS auditor concerning royalty payments on crude oil produced from offshore federal leases.
The Eagle II case is the second case that arose between TRO-X, L.P. (“TRO-X”) Several years later, Eagle purchased several leases and sold them to Chesapeake Exploration, LLC (“Chesapeake”), reserving an overriding royalty interest and a back-in working interest (the “Interests”). TRO-X, L.P. , 19, 2021) (“ Eagle II ”).
1] In the case, a landowner sued its mineral lessees for: (1) failure to provide a recordable act evidencing the expiration of a mineral lease under Mineral Code articles 206-209 and (2) failure to pay royalties under Mineral Code articles 137-140. [2] in unpaid royalties and an additional double damages penalty of $484,058.52
The Texas Supreme Court decided the case on contract construction grounds, deeming the unit to be a pooling of lands under the terms of the agreement, not just leases.
In the past, the State hired outside counsel to pursue claims for allegedly underpaid royalties and severance taxes and paid those outside lawyers on a contingency basis. Challenges were often raised to the contingency fee structure in those cases as violating the Louisiana Supreme Court’s decision in Meredith v. Ieyoub, 96-1110 (La.
30:10 was inapplicable to the case because the costs outlined in the statute comprised only pre-production and production costs. 30:10] simply means that, for all of this, he is given the equivalent of a “no cost” royalty clause on production proceeds. As of the posting of this blog entry, the delays for appeal have yet to expire. [2]
The Eagle II case is the second case that arose between TRO-X, L.P. (“TRO-X”) Several years later, Eagle purchased several leases and sold them to Chesapeake Exploration, LLC (“Chesapeake”), reserving an overriding royalty interest and a back-in working interest (the “Interests”). TRO-X, L.P. , 19, 2021) (“ Eagle II ”).
By Marie Carlisle On May 28, 2009, the Fifth Circuit decided In the Matter of: Lease Oil Antitrust Litigation, case no. 08-40230, reversing the District Court’s denial of the State of Texas’ motion to intervene in a matter concerning unclaimed settlement money from the oil antitrust action.
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.
1] In the case, an operator initiated a concursus action seeking to resolve ownership interest in minerals underlying property on which it was operating. Flat River Farms, L.L.C. , the Louisiana Second Circuit addressed issues affecting the creation and preservation of mineral servitudes and payment of court costs in a concursus action. [1]
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