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
centered on whether a 1933 deed reserved a floating 1/4 royaltyinterest or a fixed 1/32 interest. Specifically, the deed’s language reserved “an undivided one-fourth (1/4th) of the usual one-eighth (1/8th) royalty.” Fasken Oil & Ranch, Ltd. , 11-22-00365-CV, 11-23-00001-CV, 2024 Tex.
The deed severed the mineral estate from the surface estate, with Myers-Woodward LLC (“Myers”) now owning the surface estate and a 1/8th non-participating royaltyinterest in minerals. ” The Fifth Circuit, applying Texas law in Dunn-McCampbell RoyaltyInterest, Inc. 3d 39 , 47 (Tex.
Eastland 2013, pet. denied) (“ Eagle I ”), TRO-X alleged that Eagle deprived TRO-X of its right to acquire certain mineral interests upon the sale of several leases in violation of their agreement. (“Eagle”) regarding their agreement to jointly acquire and sell oil and gas leases. In the first, Eagle Oil & Gas Co. TRO-X, L.P. ,
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. See United States v. ATP Oil & Gas Corp. , 955 F.Supp.2d 2d 616 (E.D.
Eastland 2013, pet. denied) (“ Eagle I ”), TRO-X alleged that Eagle deprived TRO-X of its right to acquire certain mineral interests upon the sale of several leases in violation of their agreement. (“Eagle”) regarding their agreement to jointly acquire and sell oil and gas leases. In the first, Eagle Oil & Gas Co. TRO-X, L.P. ,
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