Co-author Rusty Tucker

This is another chapter in the dispute between Eagle Oil & Gas Co. and. TRO-X, L.P.  The litigation arises out of an agreement to acquire and sell oil and gas leases. Here, TRO-X alleges that Eagle failed to remit a share of revenues from production that commenced after the first suit between the parties ended.

Background

In 2005 TRO-X and Eagle entered into an acreage acquisition agreement for leases in Pecos and Reeves counties. The interests would be acquired in Eagle’s name for both parties. Each party could choose to retain a percentage of un-promoted working interests in the prospects, and the remaining interests would be sold to third parties. Profitable sales would yield either “cash proceeds” or “non-cash proceeds.” The agreement included an AMI.
Continue Reading A Long-Running Dispute Over an Acquisition Agreement is Returned to the Trial Court

In May et al v. Succession of Mayo Romero et al a Louisiana court of appeal denied the plaintiff’s efforts to suspend the running of liberative prescription in the face of peremptory exceptions. The discovery rule is one theory under which the doctrine of contra non valentum can save a late-filed lawsuit. Call it what you want, but opening a succession to investigate claims and sitting on those claims for 13 years is not likely to yield a beneficial result for the plaintiff. 
Continue Reading Discovery Rule Can’t Save a Louisiana Succession’s Untimely Claim

Can an email be directed to a particular state? No, said a Texas court in Enerquest Oil & Gas, LLC v. Antero Resources Corporation. The court questioned “the very premise of the contention that an email can be sent to a particular state”. Emails are not sent to a designated computer or electronic device located at a particular place. Email accounts have no physical address. They are sent into cyberspace, saved onto a server or servers, and opened by the recipient wherever that person might happen to be whether, as the court said, “in Texas, Tennessee or Tibet.”
Continue Reading Cyberspace Saves an Out-of-State Oil Company

Co-author Sonya Reddy

Defendants accused of stealing trade secrets often claim that publicly available information can’t constitute a trade secret. Sometimes yes, but mineral ownership that can be determined from the public record only after lengthy, expensive, and labor-intensive research in the county courthouse can have trade-secret protection, according to Eagle Oil & Gas Co. v. Shale Exploration, LLC.

 It began like a routine exploration venture …
Continue Reading Big Damages in a Texas Trade Secret Case

It is often a worthy strategy for the lessee to be aggressive with counterclaims against the lessor. Or how about we’re the Wehrmacht and the other guy is Poland.

Lessees should think twice about that strategy if it means complaining about the lessor’s public statements. In Lona Hills Ranch v. Creative Oil & Gas Operating LLC et al, that strategy ran afoul of the Texas Citizens Participation Act, Texas’s “anti-SLAPP” statute (“Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation”).

The TCPA authorizes dismissal of a legal action based on, relating to, or in response to a party’s exercise of the right of free speech, right to petition, or right of association.
Continue Reading Texas Anti-SLAPP Statute Stalls Lessee’s Counterclaim

Co-author Chance Decker

The Texas Supreme Court recently heard oral argument in three intriguing oil and gas cases.  Here’s what you need to know about two of them (We’ll address the third case soon).

Adams v. Murphy Exploration & Production Co. USA

Did lessee Murphy comply with an offset-well clause that doesn’t state where the offset-well must be drilled?  When a well was drilled on an adjacent tract, Murphy drilled its offset-well more than 2,000 feet from the triggering well.
Continue Reading Opinions to Expect From the Texas Supreme Court

Welcome to the binary edition, where you have a choice: An informative and engaging stroll through the history of the oil and gas business in Texas, or a wonkish and also informative legal analysis.

First, at the recent summer meeting of the Texas Independent Producers and Royalty Owners, TIPRO (and Drilling Info) president Allen Gilmer

too lateWhen must a neighbor sue for nuisance and trespass or else be barred by limitations? It’s a tricky question. In Town of Dish et al v. Atmos Energy et al, the Texas Supreme Court concluded that the claims were time-barred. The limitations train had left the station.

The rules

Here are factors considered by the court that govern when these cases must be brought:

  • Limitations runs two years from the time the claim accrues.
  • When a claim accrues (and the limitations clock begins to tick) is a question of law for Her Honor, not the jury.
  • Trespass and nuisance claims accrue once a “known injury begins.”
  • Normally, such claims don’t accrue when the source is under construction. However, once operations begin and interference occurs, the clock starts.
  • Once a claimant learns of a wrongful injury, limitations begins to run even if the claimant doesn’t yet know the specific cause of the injury, the party responsible, the extent, or the chances of avoiding it.
  • A claimant’s subjective belief as to the accrual date doesn’t matter. A nuisance is a condition causing unreasonable annoyance to persons of ordinary sensibilities. Its an objective test.


Continue Reading Limitations Runs on Nuisance Claims