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.
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.
The Eastland Court of Appeals addressed, for the first time, the interpretation of a double-fraction royalty reservation in light of Van Dyke. The case ( Boren Descendants v. centered on whether a 1933 deed reserved a floating 1/4 royaltyinterest or a fixed 1/32 interest. Fasken Oil & Ranch, Ltd. ,
The company holds 100% working interest and 98% net royaltyinterest across the greater BA-IX mining license at the Kiskunhalas project. for un-risked case. Full FDP results in capital expenditure from CHPE (2C case) of US$947.9 million, discounted at the same 10% rate.
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 support of that notion, the Court cited the 1957 Texas Supreme Court case Garrett v. Dils Co. , 2d 904 (Tex. Element Petroleum Props., 11-21-00103-CV (Tex.
Case Overview This recent case ( Rock River Minerals, LP v. The 1996 Assignment and Unit Agreement Michael Cass owned a 2.125% overriding royaltyinterest in certain leases that were part of the North Pembrook Spraberry Unit. In 1996, Cass executed an assignment conveying these interests to Pioneer's predecessor. The
The distinguishing feature of the 24 leases at issue was that KEW owned up to an 80% working interest in them (compared to 75% in all other leases being sold). The sales contracts addressed this extra up-to-5% interest through Section 8.1(iii), Callon acquired and recorded its ownership interest in August 2017. Sapphire V.P.,
Court Interprets “Free of Cost Forever” Royalty Language Broadly In this case ( Fasken Oil & Ranch, Ltd. Background: 1960 Deed and Royalty Dispute The dispute arose from a 1960 deed where B.A. Hyder , which also addressed a royalty provision with “cost-free” language. 30, 2024, no pet.
The Plaintiff sold land to a third party and reserved a 1/8 royalty nonparticipating royaltyinterest (fixed royalty language). The Court of Appeals reversed and held that the stipulation of interest should not be considered, and that the Plaintiff owned a 1/8 fixed royalty. ConocoPhillips Co.,
The current proposed bill, however, would require operators to remit all royalty payments directly to the lessors on behalf of nonparticipating working interest owners prior to well payout, i.e., during the recoupment of costs, and the statutorily authorized risk charge.
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.
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. Next, the court noted the dearth of reported cases involving Mineral Code articles 212.21-23 at *8 (citing La. 31:212.21).
The Case In this recent case, the Texas Supreme Court resolved whether ratification of a lease or signing of a stipulation agreement could transform a fixed non-participating royaltyinterest (NPRI) into a floating NPRI. In short, the court held that mere ratification of a lease does not alter a fixed NPRI.
From this line of cases, the Court concluded that “we consider Texas law reasonably clear that underground storage space generally belongs to the surface owner absent a contrary agreement.” United States, 412 F.2d 2d 1319, 1323 (Ct. First, USM did not own the salt formations—only the salt itself.
—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.
Anything to the contrary herein notwithstanding, it is expressly provided that the terms of this paragraph shall be controlling over the provisions of Paragraph 3 of this lease to the contrary and this paragraph shall not be treated as surplusage despite the holding in the cases styled “Heritage Resources, Inc. NationsBank”, 939 S.W.2d
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