Non-operators under the 1989 Model Form JOA have been hoping to drive a stake through the dark heart of Reeder v. Wood County Energy, LLC. Bachtell Enterprises, LLC v. Ankor E&P Holdings Corp might be a start. The question...more
In Apache Corp. v. Castex Offshore, Inc., the Texas Fourteenth District Court of Appeal announced that showing an oil-and-gas operator’s “willful misconduct” under an operating agreement’s exculpatory clause does not require...more
Apache Corporation v. Castex Offshore Inc. et al, answers the question, What constitutes willful misconduct in oil field operations? This was a breach of contract suit involving operator Apache and non-operator Castex....more
What is the standard of care imposed by the Model Form JOA on the well operator? Crimson Exploration Op., Inc. v. BPX Op. Co. gives us the answer, and it is no surprise....more
The Commodity Futures Trading Commission (“CFTC”) recently announced the settlement of its first enforcement action involving foreign corruption. In December 2020, the CFTC issued a Consent Order, finding that Houston-based...more
What is the ability of a litigant in the Commercial Division to use evidence located in the public records outside of the United States to re-open a New York court judgment? On December 7, 2016, in Alexander Gliklad v....more
On September 4, 2014, District Court Judge Carl Barbier issued his “Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law – Phase One Trial” in the Deepwater Horizon oil spill litigation. In his 153 page opinion, Judge Barbier found BP...more
On September 4, 2014, U.S. District Judge Carl Barbier issued findings of fact and conclusions of law for the trial of the MDL of the Gulf Oil Spill, which included findings that the oil spill was the result of BP Exploration...more
In This Issue: - Mexico's New E&P Contracts - Electricity Reform in Mexico: New Opportunities and Roles - New Licence Terms Promoting Unconventional Exploration and Production are Introduced for the UK's 14th...more