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
Ohio’s Seventh District Court of Appeals recently held that an “anti-washout” provision found in multiple assignments of overriding royaltyinterests covering leases that subsequently expired was not binding on the original lessee’s assignees, which had taken new leases to those same lands, as there was no privity of contract.
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.
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 royaltyinterest (fixed royalty language). ConocoPhillips Co.,
This article discusses a couple more cases in 2024. In each of these cases, one side successfully argued that the Van Dyke presumption applied, and the other side unsuccessfully argued that it was rebutted. Many anticipate that double-fraction cases will continue to steadily flow through Texas courts for the foreseeable future.
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. Element Petroleum Props., 11-21-00103-CV (Tex.
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.
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 royaltyinterest in the subject prospect to the plaintiff in the event defendant acquired an interest in the prospect. In CLK Company, L.L.C. 31:212.21).
The Texas Supreme Court heard oral arguments last week in a case that could substantially clarify, or even fundamentally reshape, the characterization and ownership of underground storage rights in Texas. The case was Myers-Woodward v. The case remains pending before the Texas Supreme Court on petition for review.
—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.
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
The Eagle II case is the second case that arose between TRO-X, L.P. (“TRO-X”) 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”). TRO-X, L.P. , 18-0983, 2021 WL 1045723, at *1 (Tex.
The Eagle II case is the second case that arose between TRO-X, L.P. (“TRO-X”) 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”). TRO-X, L.P. , 18-0983, 2021 WL 1045723, at *1 (Tex. 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 royaltyinterests it had conveyed back into the bankrupt estate as debt instruments.
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.
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.
40 
Let's personalize your content