Replies to This Discussion

Oil & Gas ProPermalink Reply by Grillin' - MmmMmm on August 3, 2009 at 2:21

Question: did Twic Cities sign as well? I think that might be Twin Cities' defense...made an offer subject to executing a contract; one party signed but the other party didn't, so there was no contract executed and offer isn't valid. I'm not a lawyer or a judge (probably good news to a bunch of you!!!!) so I don't know all of the in's and out's of that. I'll just wait and see what the outcome is. Then we won't have to hem and haw about it anymore...or at least when all the appeals are finished!

I've been involved in leaseholder lawsuits before where it was generally accepted that the landowner would win in the local court and we had a better than 75% chance of overturning that award in a state appeals court. Locals tend to side with locals. Then the appeals court gets a little above the fray and actually reads the law as written and as decided in previous cases. Of course none of that applies to South Texas or South Louisiana!

This case should be a doozy though with the lawyer involved and the money backing Twin Cities. Can't wait. Can you get popcorn in the stands?

• ▶ Reply

Oil & Gas ProPermalink Reply by Grillin' - MmmMmm on August 3, 2009 at 6:50

Let me call the WWE folks. I'm pretty sure we could get them interested.

Cage match: Snake vs Aubrey McClendon! Winner takes all!

Tag Team: Earl and Earlene vs Shell and Encana!

• ▶ Reply

landownerPermalink Reply by E & E on August 3, 2009 at 7:35

Mmmmmarkkkkkkk,
dagumit and I was hoping to be the ring girl :-D
Earlene the barefooted UMO

landownerPermalink Reply by P.G. on July 31, 2009 at 2:56

I don't think Obama hates "All" businesses!
Just those that doesn't suit what ever plans he has for us!

• ▶ Reply

landownerPermalink Reply by Keith Mauck (Site Publisher) on July 31, 2009 at 3:43

Let's get this back on the lawsuit topic and off politics.

thanks

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Jerry Stanton on July 30, 2009 at 15:20

Here is the petition.

http://www.shreveporttimes.com/assets/doc/D9139509729.DOC

• ▶ Reply

Oil & Gas ProPermalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on July 31, 2009 at 12:46

Thanks, Jerry. The suit bears watching. Please keep us up on developments.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Jerry Stanton on August 5, 2009 at 13:45

Does anyone know if there has been other lawsuits filed against Twin Cities locally or is this the first one?

• ▶ Reply

Oil & Gas ProPermalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on August 5, 2009 at 13:52

None against TC that have actually made it to court that I am aware of Jerry. Chesapeake recently lost their first local court case on summary judgment. I'd like for a member who knows some of the specifics to post a report on that case. And what ever happened to the group that Cody Mayo was representing?

• ▶ Reply

landownerPermalink Reply by insomniacnla on August 5, 2009 at 15:23

In another case in DeSoto, a Motion for Summary Judgment was granted by Judge Charles Adams on 8-3-09 in favor of the plaintiffs and against Petrohawk. This suit involved a Favored Nations Clause in the landowners' lease and Petrohawk refused to pay the additional sum, which was over $1,000,000, and the landowners prevailed. The landowners were represented by the Weiner, Weiss, Madison lawfirm.

• ▶ Reply

Oil & Gas ProPermalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on August 5, 2009 at 15:36

Thanks, insomniacla. That may be the same case and the person relating it to me thought it was CHK. Or maybe I misunderstood. Regardless it is of interest that the defendant would choose summary judgment. Is it possible that they do not wish to risk exposure to a jury of locals who may not have a favorable opinion of some of the bigger and better known Shale Players? I also heard that the defendants team of lawyers did not include any local attorneys. They brought in some heavy hitters from out of town. I suspect that a number of operators are discussing this case and considering its implications on their future legal plans.

• ▶ Reply

landownerPermalink Reply by insomniacnla on August 5, 2009 at 16:01

Petrohawk was represented by the firm of Lemle & Kelleher, (Houston, New Orleans and Baton Rouge) which has been around for decades and they do know what they are doing. I think that several of the larger o/g companies use the same firm.

Both the Plaintiffs and Defendants each filed their own Motions for Summary Judgment but Judge Adams granted the Plaintiffs' Motion and denied the Defendants' Motion. Both Parties felt that the Lease in itself was it own best evidence and the case did not even need to go to trial because the only real issue was whether or not the Most Favored Nations Clause was triggered or not. Petrohawk said it was not triggered and should not have to pay the extra money, Judge Adams disagreed.

The land covered in the lawsuit was in both Caddo and DeSoto Parishes.

I think that the larger o/g companies have adopted a policy of vigorously defending everything and do not mind if things are drawn out or not. Wal-Mart has the same policy, they defend everything, no matter how big or small.

I was happy for the landowners.

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• Next ›
• Page