It is estimated that BP PLC will pay $7.8 billion to resolve medical and economic claims from the worst offshore oil spill in the history of the United States.  The settlement is not capped and the final figure could be lower or higher.

The settlement was made final in a 125-page ruling by U.S. District Judge Carl Barbier.  The judge stated in his ruling that none of the objections raised had shown the settlement to be inadequate, unfair or unreasonable.

Thousands of people chose to opt out of the settlement after Barbier gave it preliminary approval, in order to pursue the cases on an individual basis.  By the December 15 deadline to change their minds, more than 1,700 people had opted back in.

A BP company spokesperson said that the settlement was good for the people of the Gulf region and was in the best interest of BP’s stakeholders, in that years of litigation would be avoided.  BP added that its goals were restoration in the area and the elimination of legal risks.

Attorneys for the plaintiffs that accepted the settlement also said they were pleased it had been approved, as they believed it would bring relief to the people and businesses affected by the spill.

In April 2010, BP’s Macondo well blew out, triggering an explosion that resulted in the deaths of 11 oil rig workers and the leakage of 200 million gallons of oil.  Recreational and commercial fishing and shrimping were stopped for months in much of the Gulf.

Much litigation will still take place, including a trial, scheduled to take place next year, to determine the causes of the blowout and assign fault by percentage to the various companies involved.

People and businesses in Mississippi, Louisiana, Alabama, and some coastal areas of western Florida and eastern Texas are covered by the settlement.

According to Barbier, the settlement will prevent extremely lengthy litigation such as that following the Exxon Valdez oil spill.  Barbier has yet to rule on a separate medical settlement for workers who participated in the cleanup and said exposure to oil and dispersant agents caused them to become ill.

Barbier said that BP had already begun paying claims, paying about $405 million during a transitional process and has already authorized $1.4 billion in payments.  Attorney’s fees will be paid separately.

Gregory D. Jordan is an Austin business litigation attorney, Austin business litigation lawyer, Texas business litigation attorney, Texas business litigation lawyer, Austin business attorney, Austin employment lawyer, Austin oil and gas lawyer and Texas oil and gas lawyer. To learn more, visit http://www.theaustintriallawyer.com.

Landowners in Texas, Michigan and North Dakota have filed lawsuits against the company, claiming that Chesapeake reneged on lease agreements. As the price of gas decreased, Chesapeake attempted to cancel hundreds of lease agreements with mineral rights owners, only to be rebuked in court.

A recent decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals is one example. Chesapeake attempted to void an agreement with Plano, Texas-based Peak Energy Corp., claiming that the letter of intent both parties signed did not amount to a valid contract. The Fifth Circuit upheld a multi-million dollar ruling from the district court, holding that Chesapeake breached its contract and ordering the company to pay Peak Energy $12,000 per acre. The court’s decision does not bode well for Chesapeake, as the Fifth Circuit covers a large swath of oil and gas land and its rulings are influential in other circuits regarding mineral rights matters. Chesapeake told investors recently that the failure of the hundreds of lease deals had cost the company more than a billion dollars.

Last spring it was alleged that Aubrey McClendon, who founded Chesapeake and served as its board chairman, had taken out more than $1.5 billion in loans that he did not disclose, and that his personal lender was also a Chesapeake investor. The company ousted McClendon as chairman, and the Securities and Exchange Commission continues to investigate financial dealings between McClendon and Chesapeake.

Later in the year, Reuters reported that Chesapeake and its competitor, Encana Corp., had tried to prevent a situation where they would bid against each other in a land purchase. The Department of Justice is now investigating whether or not anti-trust laws were violated.

Chesapeake Energy is the second-largest gas producer in the United States and once held mineral rights to land equal in size to the state of West Virginia.

Gregory D. Jordan is an Austin business attorney, Austin employment lawyer, and Austin business litigation lawyer. To learn more, visit Theaustintriallawyer.com.

The case, decided in Zavala County, in the District Court for the 365th Judicial District, is Longview Energy Company v. The Huff Energy L.P., Riley-Huff Energy Group LLC, William R. “Bill” Huff and Rick D’Angelo.

The jury found that the defendants abused their positions as directors of the company, breaching their fiduciary duties and misusing proprietary and confidential information.

The Eagle Ford Shale, in South Texas, is an oil and natural gas field in at least 24 counties.  Wells in the northern portions of the Eagle Ford often produce more oil while those in the southern sections generally produce more gas.

Whether the plaintiff will be able to collect the full $162 million is a matter of dispute.  The jury found that assets worth $42 million were wrongly obtained by Riley-Huff Energy Group, and that the company also received past revenues of $120 million due to the failure of the two directors to act within their fiduciary duty.  The defendants’ attorneys have noted that the jury found the company spent $24.5 million in exchange for certain assets, and spent $127 million developing them.

Longview Energy Company is incorporated in Delaware, and the issue of whether the laws of that state allow the offset of funds used to obtain or develop assets, when a jury finds they were acquired through breach of fiduciary duty, was disputed by both sides in the case.

The lawsuit moved through the courts quickly, reaching a jury verdict just nine months after the case was filed.  The suit alleged that directors Huff and D’Angelo breached their duties to Longview, taking corporate opportunites for themselves, to gain hundreds of millions of dollars.  The two were also accused of misusing corporate information, and fraud.

The lawsuit further accused The Huff Energy Fund – a shareholder in Longview – and competitor Riley-Huff, of conspiring with D’Angelo and Huff to obtain assets for themselves, using their positions as Longview directors to gain information about the assets.

The lawsuit states that after directing Longview to look into purchasing assets in the Eagle Ford Shale, D’Angelo, Huff, and others founded Riley-Huff with the intention of acquiring the corporation’s opportunities for themselves.

The jury’s verdict finds that the two directors breached their duty to the company when they obtained the assets for themselves, and that Riley-Huff and Huff Energy participated knowingly in the directors’ actions.

Gregory D. Jordan is an Austin oil and gas attorney, Austin oil and gas litigation attorney, and Austin business litigation lawyer. To learn more, visit Theaustintriallawyer.com.

When Aston Meadows bought the land, no oil and gas production was occurring. But in 2007, they sued Devon and its parent company for allegedly drilling horizontally under their property. Aston claimed that Devon’s lease was invalid because it was not recorded in Tarrant County’s records. Aston claimed they were owed damages for trespass, conversion, breach of contract and unpaid royalties, and that they were entitled to injunctive relief.

The Texas Property Code generally provides that a property transaction is properly recorded when it is recorded in the county wherein a “…part of the property is located”. This thereby gives notice to everyone of “…the existence of the instrument”. When a piece of land crosses multiple counties, if a transfer involving that land is recorded in either county, it is usually deemed sufficient constructive notice to all persons of the transfer.

Since the lease owned by Devon Energy spanned two counties and was recorded in one of them, the appellate court affirmed the trial court’s judgment in Devon’s favor.

Oil and gas disputes can be complex. They involve precious land assets and may turn on intricate issues of title. Aston Meadow’s title policy did not show the lease as an encumbrance. Nevertheless, Aston lost their case. This case illustrates why it is crucial to have a knowledgeable and experienced Texas oil and gas attorney in your corner if you are dealing with an oil company or involved in an oil and gas dispute.

Gregory D. Jordan is an Austin oil and gas attorney, Austin oil and gas litigation attorney, and Austin business litigation lawyer. To learn more, visit Theaustintriallawyer.com.

Yet at the same time, some oil and gas pipeline companies have been wielding their influence to take advantage of the situation and exercise their eminent domain powers at the expense of landowners. Numerous companies are vying to construct pipelines across thousands of miles of land to handle the new production. Earlier in the year, pipeline companies could claim eminent domain to acquire an easement on a coveted piece of mineral-rich property with few restrictions. Texas law allowed them to do so and the only recourse landowners sometimes had was to try to negotiate for compensation or possibly face a lawsuit from the pipeline company.

But since Sept. 1, Texas law now says that pipeline companies must make a good faith offer to the landowner and give the landowner more time to respond to the offer before the company can file a lawsuit. There are numerous other requirements that pipeline companies must now meet and there are also numerous additional rights and protections that have been granted to landowners. Lawsuits have gone up sevenfold in the last year as companies vie for their piece of the Eagle Ford shale. Individuals and communities have shown concern about the pace of development and their rights being suppressed.

A skilled Texas oil and gas attorney can give legal guidance to landowners to ensure they are having their rights upheld, know their options, and that an offer is adequate and fair. Any offer a pipeline company gives should be based on numerous factors, including a current appraisal of the land or easement’s value. Should negotiations break down, a skilled oil and gas lawyer can be critical for having the landowner’s concerns addressed in a courtroom. An Eagle Ford oil and gas attorney can also assist when an oil and gas lease dispute arises or conflicts over mineral rights, drilling, or environmental issues surface.

The Law Offices of Gregory D. Jordan counsels individuals and landowners in the Eagle Ford Shale area of south Texas. Texas oil and gas lawyer Gregory D. Jordan has decades of oil and gas industry experience, not only from the legal perspective, but also from his background as a petroleum landman and petroleum engineer.

Gregory D. Jordan is an Austin oil and gas attorney, Austin business attorney, and Austin business litigation lawyer. To learn more, visit Theaustintriallawyer.com.