Class Action Suit May Affect 50,000 Haynesville Shale Landowners

On April 10, 2010 a class action suit was filed affecting Haynesville Shale property owners in all of the Haynesville Fields of north Louisiana.  The suit is filed against the Commissioner of Conservation and operators in the Haynesville Fields.  The basis of the suit is that the Commissioner of Conservation is authorized by statute to establish a production unit that can be drained by one well.  Members within one of the proposed classes are being denied their pro-rata share of production and the other class members are being denied their market value of their leasehold interest ownership.  This may affect some 50,000 property owners in northwest Louisiana!

 

We have met with some of the attorneys and are pleased with the representation.  The attorneys are class action attorneys Fayard & Honeycutt of Denham Springs; Simon, Peragine, Smith & Redfearn, LLP of New Orleans; Law Offices of Rudolph Estess, Jr. of Baton Rouge (in that office as special counsel is Jack C. Caldwell), Charles Tutt of Shreveport, Cave Law Firm of Baton Rouge, and Ryan Gatti an attorney from Bossier City.  Through our own independent research we have learned that Mr. Caldwell was a contributing author to the Louisiana Mineral Code and also served as Secretary of the Department of Natural Resources.

 

If successful this would create a tremendous economic boom to this area by creation of many more jobs, not to mention a substantial increase to severance taxes to the state of Louisiana.  We have received per request a filed copy of the pleadings filed in East Baton Rouge Parish.  The suit explains the law and the resulting violation.   Should you desire a copy of the suit please email your request to us at:  www.fairdrilling.com.  You may also wish to contact your attorney or local attorney for the group, Mr Gatti.

 

Andrew

Views: 6084

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on January 18, 2014 at 6:03

It's his job to facilitate the development of minerals under state lands and energy companies would not develop unconventional reservoirs under a one unit/one well requirement. 

Permalink Reply by Bobi Carr ("parker") on January 18, 2014 at 6:25

A  a one unit/one well requirement would sure make a crazy patchwork quilt.  The size would be ever changing because technology will always change.

Permalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on January 21, 2014 at 12:37

I now have a copy of the Notice Of Judgment And Disposition from the First Circuit Court Of Appeals.  It is in pdf format which precludes my posting it on GHS.  For those who are my "friends" and have my off site email address you can request a copy.  For those who would care to get their copy elsewhere it is Docket #2013-CA-0289.

Permalink Reply by Dion Warr, CPL on January 24, 2014 at 6:26

Group:

As a followup to Skip, one may access a scanned PDF of this judgment by clicking on this link (make sure to have a PDF viewer plug-in).

It is from the FCCA website - Decisions.

Permalink Reply by Andrew Walker on January 21, 2014 at 13:00

Skip:

I am the member who created this discussion back in 2010, however, I have not kept up with the Gatti suit.  This is interesting.  Thank you for the updates!

Andrew

 

Permalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on January 21, 2014 at 13:02

Welcome back, Andrew.

Permalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on September 2, 2014 at 8:52

Andrew, I understand that the Supremes have ruled in the Gatti suit.  Has the ruling been published yet? 

Permalink Reply by Andrew Walker on September 2, 2014 at 10:35

Skip:  The ruling has not been published yet.  I've been in touch with one of the attorneys involved and he asks I keep the details confidential for now.

Permalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on September 2, 2014 at 10:59

I understand.  Please post the ruling when you can.

Permalink Reply by Andrew Walker on September 2, 2014 at 11:31

Will do.

Permalink Reply by Dion Warr, CPL on September 3, 2014 at 10:13
Skip:

All that is in the record as of current re: Gatti -

http://www.lasc.org/opinions/2014/14C0863_0870_0880_0885_0888.pc.pdf
Permalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on September 3, 2014 at 10:41

That matches what I had heard.  Thanks, Dion.

RSS

Support GoHaynesvilleShale.com

Top Content 

1 Looking Back At The Haynesville Shale - A Retrospective

Looking Back At The Haynesville Shale - A Retrospective
2 Pending Public Oil and Gas Hearings

Pending Public Oil and Gas Hearings
3 Arkansas Smackover Lithium Play

Arkansas Smackover Lithium Play
4 Comstock October Presentation

Comstock October Presentation
5 Aethon looks for Buyers of its Haynesville Assets

Aethon looks for Buyers of its Haynesville Assets
6 Notice Emails Are Back! Please review how they work.

Notice Emails Are Back! Please review how they work.
7 Arkansas O&G Commission unanimously denies royalty rate application for lithium extraction

Arkansas O&G Commission unanimously denies royalty rate application for lithium extraction

Blog Posts

The Lithium Connection to Shale Drilling

Shale drilling and lithium extraction are seemingly distinct activities, but there is a growing connection between the two as the world moves towards cleaner energy solutions. While shale drilling primarily targets…

Continue

Posted by Keith Mauck (Site Publisher) on November 20, 2024 at 12:40

Not a member? Get our email.

Groups



© 2024   Created by Keith Mauck (Site Publisher).   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service