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
Citation 2002 Inv. Citation 2002 Inv. In Posse Energy the El Paso Court of Appeals determined that the limiting language in the exhibit at issue did control, since the language in the granting instrument was “extremely broad” and the exhibit included the critical limiting language of “insofar and only insofar as.”
In 2002, Kenneth Hahn conveyed land to William and Lucille Gips, reserving "an undivided one-half (1/2) non-participating interest in and to all of the royalty [Hahn] now owns ConocoPhillips Co. Hahn also challenged the stipulation under the statute of frauds, arguing it failed as a conveyance for lack of adequate property descriptions.
Where the instruments are not clear, this can sometimes lead to disagreement as to whether the descriptive information is intended to limit the scope of the assignment, or to merely serve as helpful descriptive information. Citation 2002 Inv. et al (Occidental) to a predecessor of Citation 2002 Investment LLC (Citation).
In the 2002 ISDA Master Agreement this concept appears in the “force majeure” termination event, and in the 1992 ISDA Master Agreement it is often adopted as an “impossibility” additional termination event. . – Force Majeure and Impossibility.
38:2325(B) which states that it holds property “as an instrumentality of the State of Louisiana[;]” the Fifth Circuit pointed out that the statute also states “[t]itle to all property acquired by the Authority shall be taken in its corporate name.” Hawkins , 381 F.3d As for the sixth and final factor, though SRA-L pointed to La. 4 (5th Cir.
For over 20 years, the existing 1994 CSA has been the preferred instrument for detailing credit support arrangements related to New York law ISDA contracts. Initial margin requirements are excluded from the 2016 CSA and, if applicable, would be addressed in a separate instrument.
Nonetheless, it does serve as a reminder that when a party recognizes an omission or mistake in an instrument affecting mineral rights, a party should not immediately opt for an easy fix via a notarial act of correction. 20] The CUA permit was obtained on January 20, 2004.
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.
Let's personalize your content