Businesses of all types and sizes throughout the United States, Mexico and beyond bring their disputes to Gardere's litigation team and receive practical, responsive, boutique-style attention in return. Our clients have access to the firepower and value of a well-known and highly-regarded Firm's capabilities and interdisciplinary strengths.
Gardere has a national and international energy practice formed around our Energy Industry Team, which is a multidisciplinary group of approximately 60 attorneys with diverse backgrounds, experience and skills specific to the energy industry. Our team includes attorneys who have served as in-house counsel for major energy companies, providing a depth of insight into our clients' needs, issues and concerns. We understand and regularly practice in virtually every sector of the energy, and we represent a wide variety of industry participants from multinational corporations to individuals.
From our offices in the United States and Mexico, our International Practice helps clients operate in today’s global economy. We have more than 30 professionals operating as a boutique within an Am Law 200 law firm and are able to provide focused service with the resources of a large firm. We understand that clients who are engaged in the global marketplace need lawyers who can operate seamlessly across multiple jurisdictions. Our international experts are multi-lingual, are culturally fluent and intimately familiar with various legal systems across the world, especially those in Latin America. Whether you need help with commercial transactions, regulatory matters, customs and import regulations, immigration matters, M&A and joint ventures, international disputes, or international tax planning, Gardere’s international team is here to assist you.
We represent domestic and foreign private funds in all aspects of fund formation, fund operations, platform and add-on acquisitions, and portfolio company operations. Our team has a reputation for being the go-to-lawyers for private equity funds, hedge funds, venture capital funds and family offices. We are known for our vast deal experience, the efficient way we staff and manage our work, and the way we maintain our relationships. We get deals done with sophisticated, strategic, and practical advice tailored to the needs of our clients.
*Not admitted to practice law.
Determining a royalty interest holder's responsibility for post-production expenses (for example, taxes, treatment costs, and transportation) can be complicated. The general rule is that a royalty interest holder is not responsible for production expenses, but has to pay her share of post-production costs.
Of course, parties are free to modify the default rule by agreement. A recent case from the Fourth Court of Appeals in San Antonio shows that construing such agreements can be a slippery proposition, and that careless drafting can relieve a royalty interest holder of her default responsibilities.
Chesapeake Exploration, LLC v. Hyder involved a royalty clause governing one set of wells and an overriding royalty clause governing another. The first clause contained the following language:
The royalty reserved herein by [Hyder] shall be free and clear of all production and post-production costs and expenses, including but not limited to, production, gathering, separating, storing, dehydrating, compressing, transporting, processing, treating, marketing, delivering, or any other costs and expenses incurred between the wellhead and [Chesapeake Exploration's] point of delivery or sale of such share to a third party.
Chesapeake argued that this clause allowed it to deduct post-production expenses incurred after the point of delivery, but before the point of sale. According to Chesapeake, the "point of delivery or sale" language effectively limited the "free-and-clear" language. Thus, Chesapeake argued, while the clause prevented deducting expenses incurred between the wellhead and delivery, it said nothing about expenses subsequently incurred between delivery and sale.
The court rejected this argument. After observing that a royalty is normally subject to post-production costs, the court noted that the default rule could be modified by agreement and that the parties had effectively done so. Free and clear meant what it said. As a result, Chesapeake could not collect its transportation costs, notwithstanding the apparent ambiguity in the free-and-clear clause and the default rule making transportation expenses deductible.
The second clause gave Hyder "a perpetual cost-free . . . overriding royalty interest." Chesapeake argued that "cost-free" simply referred to the default rule that an overriding royalty is free of production cost and therefore post-production transportation costs were still available.
The court didn't buy this argument either. If "cost-free" only meant "production-cost-free," the language would have been unnecessary. By virtue of being an overriding royalty, the interest was already "production-cost-free," so the cost-free language had to refer to something else. According to the court, that something else was post-production costs.
The Court's ruling left Chesapeake holding the bag for $1.75 million in transportation cost without any help from Hyder. The lesson is clear. Spell out the royalty interest holder's responsibility for transportation costs. Language relieving the royalty owner of her default responsibilities may be broadly construed, so avoid any ambiguities.
The publications contained in this site do not constitute legal advice. Legal advice can only be given with knowledge of the client's specific facts. By putting these publications on our website we do not intend to create a lawyer-client relationship with the user. Materials may not reflect the most current legal developments, verdicts or settlements. This information should in no way be taken as an indication of future results.
You may use the wildcard symbol (*) as a root expander. A search for "anti*" will find not only "anti", but also "anti-trust", "antique", etc.
Entering two terms together in a search field will behave as though an "OR" is being used. For example, entering "Antique Motorcars" as a Client Name search will find results with either word in the Client Name.
AND and OR may be used in a search. Note: they must be capitalized, e.g., "Project AND Finance."
The + and - sign operators may be used. The + sign indicates that the term immediately following is required, while the - sign indicates to omit results that contain that term. E.g., "+real -estate" says results must have "real" but not "estate".
To perform an exact phrase search, surround your search phrase with quotation marks. For example, "Project Finance".
Searches are not case sensitive.