Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on October 6, 2016 at 6:51

Vaguely familiar.  What was the final result?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by LN on October 6, 2016 at 7:57

Hi Skip, you can read about it on the Web. 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on October 6, 2016 at 8:01

Not the final result you allude to.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Steve P on October 6, 2016 at 13:10

royalty owner's efforts to (a) avoid mandatory arbitration or (b) have the Court require "class arbitration" were both denied, and, instead, the litigation was stayed pending individual arbitration for each of the 40 plaintiffs claims.  Huge setback for the royalty owners.  The arbitration clauses in the leases require the parties to equally split the cost of the arbitration.

http://us-arbitration.shearman.com/siteFiles/14212/2016.09.29%20Hop...

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on October 6, 2016 at 13:12

Thanks, Steve.  I looked and couldn't find the current status.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Steve P on October 6, 2016 at 13:22

decision was rendered last week.  wasn't easy to find but I found it.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on October 6, 2016 at 14:39

LN, is this the final result to which you were referring?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by LN on October 6, 2016 at 14:52

Yes. 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on October 7, 2016 at 3:36

I wish you had stated that the litigation was stayed pending arbitration at the first of the discussion instead of making us search for it.  From Steve's reply it would appear that this is not a final result as the suit is stayed pending arbitration for each individual plaintiff.

• ▶ Reply