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 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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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. ,
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. To receive information from Liskow & Lewis, your information will be kept in a secured contact database.
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]
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.
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 court also ruled that “Mr. A link to the decision is attached.
Tauren Exploration, Inc. , A detailed summary of that decision is available here. On August 7, in a 3-2 decision, a panel of five Second Circuit judges denied the defendants’ application for rehearing.
Earlier information about this case can be found here. *In To receive information from Liskow & Lewis, your information will be kept in a secured contact database. Although not yet final, this reversal is long-awaited victory for unit operators in Louisiana. Johnson Ruling Reversing Prior PPC Ruling.
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.
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. To receive information from Liskow & Lewis, your information will be kept in a secured contact database.
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
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.
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 ”).
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. 4] In opposition, the unit operator contended that La. This is hardly unjust. [19]
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 ”).
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. The consent decree neither defines the term “responsible corporate official.”
Part of the funding for Autazes will come from a royalty agreement with Franco Nevada. That is $1M for the option – the purchase price of the royalty will be based on a 12.5% There is also a 2% royalty that will be paid to the Brazilian government. pre-tax IRR at the time the option is exercised. Traded Securities or U.S.
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]
A joint information circular, which will include details of the transaction, is expected to be mailed to Whitecap and Veren shareholders in mid-April 2025. Refer to Barrel of Oil Equivalency and Production & Product Type Information in this press release for additional disclosure. Advisors National Bank Financial Inc.
Preferred equity in these cases usually includes the right to vote for directors of a corporation or managers of an LLC. In many cases, the investors in preferred equity will require representation on the board of directors for an SMB organized as a corporation or the board of managers for an SMB organized as an LLC.
The Court found that the Plaintiff States demonstrated a substantial threat of irreparable harm due to “reduced funding for bonuses, ground rent, royalties, and rentals,” and “damage for reduced funding” for various state programs. To receive information from Liskow & Lewis, your information will be kept in a secured contact database.
The Court found that the Plaintiff States demonstrated a substantial threat of irreparable harm due to “reduced funding for bonuses, ground rent, royalties, and rentals,” and “damage for reduced funding” for various state programs. To receive information from Liskow & Lewis, your information will be kept in a secured contact database.
The Court found that the Plaintiff States demonstrated a substantial threat of irreparable harm due to “reduced funding for bonuses, ground rent, royalties, and rentals,” and “damage for reduced funding” for various state programs. To receive information from Liskow & Lewis, your information will be kept in a secured contact database.
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