Published on:

By

The Texas Supreme Court heard argument last week in a fee dispute between Albert Hill Jr., an H.L. Hunt heir, and one of his attorneys, Gregory Shamoun. Albert G. Hill, Jr. v. Shamoun & Norman, LLP, No. 16-0107.  The Dallas Court of Appeals reversed a take-nothing judgment and awarded Shamoun $7.5 million in fees. 483 S.W.3d 767 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2016)  Shamoun helped Hill resolve a “spider web of litigation”, twenty lawsuits, among Hill, his son and other family members over a $1 billion family trust that involved more than 100 attorneys representing Hill. Shamoun claimed that Hill orally promised to pay him a contingency fee if Shamoun was successful in resolving all of the litigation. To everyone’s surprise, Shamoun negotiated a global settlement of $40.5 million and left the trust in Hill’s control. (Shamoun gained fame by once bringing a donkey to testify in a case.)

The jury awarded Shamoun $7.5 million, which would work out to about $48,000/hour. (Shamoun sought $11 million.) The trial court threw out the verdict, refusing to enforce an oral fee agreement. But the court of appeals held that Shamoun had proven his right to a fee under a theory of quantum meruit, even though oral fee agreements are illegal under Texas’ Statute of Frauds. Under the quantum meruit theory, the jury was free to award a fee that was reasonable under the circumstances, based on the time spent and the result obtained. Hill’s attorneys argued that the only evidence Shamoun presented of a reasonable fee was the contingency fee he said Hill had agreed to, and that evidence was inadmissible.

Texas Solicitor General Scott Keller weighed in with an amicus brief supporting Hill and presented argument in the case – a very unusual event. Hill’s lawyer, James Ho, who also argued the case for Hill, was recently nominated for a seat on the 5th U.S. Court of Appeals by President Trump. One of the attorneys representing Shamoun is former Texas Supreme Court Chief Justice Wallace Jefferson, who argued the case for Shamoun.  Oral argument can be viewed here.

Published on:

By

The DC Court of Appeals and the US District Court for the Northern District of California have struck down orders of the EPA and the Bureau of Land Management postponing compliance dates for the Obama administration’s rules requiring the oil and gas industry to monitor and reduce methane emissions. Both courts held that the agency’s orders were “arbitrary and capricious” and in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act.  Clean Air Council, et al. v. E. Scott Pruitt, Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency and Environmental Protection Agency, No. 17-1145, opinion July 3, 2017; State of California, et al. v. U.S. Bureau of Land Management, et al., Case Nos. 17-cv-03804-EDL, 17-cv-388-EDL, opinion Oct. 4, 2017.

Methane is a powerful greenhouse gas contributing to human-caused global warming. The EPA’s rules, aimed at reducing emissions of methane from oil and gas facilities, were adopted in May 2016. They impose “new source performance standards” for finding and fixing leaks of methane in oil and gas production facilities. Those rules require operators to implement a leak monitoring plan using optical gas imaging to find and fix leaks from valves, connectors, pressure-relief devices, flanges, compressors and thief hatches on storage tanks.  The BLM issued similar rules in November 2016 to reduce waste of natural gas from venting, flaring and leaks during oil and gas production activities on Federal and Indian lands.

President Trump appointed Scott Pruitt as Administrator of EPA. Pruitt, as Attorney General of Oklahoma, sued the EPA at fourteen times on behalf of his state, attacking the EPA’s authority to regulate various industries. Pruitt rejects the scientific consensus that human activities contribute to climate change. Continue reading →

Published on:

By

On September 22, the Texas Supreme Court refused to reconsider its opinion in BP America v. Red Deer Resources, No. 15.0569 – after some 16 amicus briefs and letters were filed urging the court to grant Red Deer’s motion for rehearing.

The Court addressed the construction of a shut-in royalty clause in an oil and gas lease:

Where gas from any well or wells capable of producing gas … is not sold or used during or after the primary term and this lease is not otherwise maintained in effect, lessee may pay or tender as shut-in royalty …, payable annually on or before the end of each twelve month period during which such gas is not sold or used and this lease is not otherwise maintained in force, and if such shut-in royalty is so paid or tendered and while lessee’s right to pay or tender same is accruing, it shall be considered that gas is being produced in paying quantities, and this lease shall remain in force during each twelve-month period for which shut-in royalty is so paid or tendered ….

Continue reading →
Published on:

By

The Texas Supreme Court has reconsidered its decision not to hear two appeals involving retained acreage clauses: XOG Operating, LLC v. Chesapeake Exploration Limited Partnership, No. 15-0935, and Endeavor Energy Resources, L.P. v. Discovery Operating, Inc., No. 16-0155. The Court initially refused to consider the cases, after ordering briefs on the merits in both, but on September 1 the Court reversed itself. It reinstated XOG’s petition for review in XOG v. Chesapeake, and it granted the petition for review and set Endeavor v. Discovery for oral argument on January 9, 2018.TexasBarToday_TopTen_Badge_Small

In XOG v. Chesapeake, the retained acreage clause is included not in an oil and gas lease, but in an assignment of lease from XOG. The assignment provided that, once the continuous development period in the assignment expires:

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

Landowners in Texas challenged the right of pipelines to condemn easements for intrastate lines in Texas in Texas Rice Land Partners, Ltd. v. Denbury Green Pipeline-Texas, LLC, decided in 2011. The Texas Supreme Court held that a pipeline seeking to exercise the power of eminent domain must prove that the pipeline will be put to a “public use.” The case caused a stir among pipeline companies and their counsel, and resulted in new regulations at the Texas Railroad Commission, which approves intrastate pipeline projects, and efforts to bolster pipeline eminent domain authority by legislation.

A group of landowners has now filed suit challenging the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission’s grant of eminent domain authority for interstate pipeline projects. In Bold Alliance et al. v. FERC et al., No. 1:17-cv-01822 (Bold Alliance v. FERC), in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, the plaintiffs allege that FERC does not require pipeline companies to demonstrate that their projects serve a “public use.”   The plaintiffs seek to enjoin FERC from issuing certificates of need to Mountain Valley Pipeline for its proposed 301-mile 42-inch gas line in West Virginia and Virginia,  and to Atlantic Coast Pipeline for its 564-mile 42-inch line in West Virginia, Virginia and North Carolina.

After all of the concern created by the Texas Supreme Court’s 2011 decision in Denbury, the Court this year finally held that Denbury did in fact have the power to condemn Texas Rice Land Partners’ property. The Court held that “the evidence adduced by Denbury Green on remand established as a matter of law that there was a reasonable probability that, at some point after construction, the Green Line would serve the public by transporting CO2 for one or more customers who will either retain ownership of their gas or sell it to parties other than the carrier.” This is not a high hurdle to overcome. It will be interesting to see what test the DC Court applies to determine whether the projects there challenged will serve a public use.

Published on:

By

From OilPrice.com:

Last year, the value of U.S. energy exports to Mexico was US$20.2 billion, while the value of U.S. energy imports from Mexico was only US$8.7 billion, according to the EIA.

On the other hand, Mexico’s oil and gas output is 40 percent off its peak levels, an S&P Global Platts report showed last week. Mexico’s crude oil output of 2 million bpd in June was far below the 2004 peak of 3.4 million bpd, while dry natural gas production is 3.2 Bcf/d this year, compared to a 2010 peak of 5.1 Bcf/d. Mexico, therefore, relies heavily on U.S. pipeline gas and LNG imports.

Continue reading →
Published on:

By

Last May, the San Antonio Court of Appeals issued an opinion in Texas Outfitters Limited v. Nicholson, No. 04-16-00392-CV, addressing the duty of holders of the mineral executive right to its non-executive mineral owner – a case now pending on application for writ of error in the Texas Supreme Court. It is the first significant appellate opinion on the duty of the executive since the Supreme Court’s decision in Lesley v. Veterans Land  Board on the same topic. The case tells the remarkable story of a landowner’s failure to carry out its duty of “utmost fair dealing” in exercising – or in this case failing to exercise – its executive right.

The executive right is the power to lease minerals for oil and gas exploration and development. It is one of the sticks in the bundle of rights that make up the mineral estate. The executive right can be conveyed or reserved separately from the other rights of the mineral owner – the right to bonus, delay rental and royalty. When the right to lease the mineral estate is owned by a different party than the owner of the mineral estate, conflicts can arise between the two on whether, when and on what terms the executive should exercise its right. Courts have struggled to define what duty the executive holds to the non-executive mineral owner.

The two previous cases from the Texas Supreme Court, In re Bass, 113 S.W.3d 735 (Tex. 2003) and Lesley v. Texas Veterans Land Board, 352 S.W.3d 479 (Tex. 2011), sent mixed signals on the scope of the executive-rights holder’s duty. In Bass, the court held that the holder of the executive right had no duty to enter into an oil and gas lease, but only to exercise utmost fair dealing if it elected to lease. In Lesley, the court backed off its previous holding, deciding that the holder of the executive right could breach its duty by failing to lease – or in Lesley’s, case, imposing restrictive covenants on the land that made it impossible to lease.

Continue reading →
Published on:

By

With the drop in oil prices has come a wave of litigation over underpayment of royalties. Multiple suits have been filed against Repsol (formerly Talisman) over its royalty payments in the Eagle Ford. Multiple suits against Devon for royalty underpayment have been consolidated into a multi-district docket in San Antonio. A federal court in Fort Worth has certified a class action against Devon for underpayment of royalties in the Barnett Shale. Conoco is settling class actions brought in Oklahoma that also cover class members in Texas. These suits allege underpayments of royalty on oil and gas. The San Antonio multi-district suits also allege breach of lease provisions requiring the lessee to protect the lease against drainage from wells on adjacent properties.

These cases present opportunities for plaintiffs’ attorneys to earn large contingency fees. They also point out the problems faced by land and mineral owners in determining whether their lessee is complying with their oil and gas lease. What should landowners do to monitor lease compliance?

There are no easy answers to these questions. Below are some suggestions.

Continue reading →

Contact Information
John McFarland
 Graves, Dougherty, Hearon & Moody, P.C.
401 Congress Avenue, Suite 2700
Austin, Texas 78701
Phone: 512-480-5618
This Blog/Web Site is made available for educational purposes only as well as to give general information and a general understanding of the law, not to provide specific legal advice. By using this blog site you understand that there is no attorney client relationship between you and the publisher. The Blog/Web Site should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a licensed professional attorney in your state.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

Please do not include any confidential or sensitive information in a contact form, text message, or voicemail. The contact form sends information by non-encrypted email, which is not secure. Submitting a contact form, sending a text message, making a phone call, or leaving a voicemail does not create an attorney-client relationship.

Copyright © 2015 – 2025, John McFarland
JUSTIA Law Firm Blog Design