Identifying and Quantifying Government Contract Claims
Government Contract Changes and Modifications - Webinar
Coverage Litigation Leapfrog: Why Venue Matters and How to Avoid Pre-emptive Strike Actions
Troutman Pepper COVID-19 Legal Issues Podcast Series: COVID-19 Commercial Leasing Trends (Part Two)
Will COVID-19 Qualify as a ‘Material Adverse Effect’?
Making Effective Use of the Claims/Disputes Process
FCPA Compliance and Ethics Report-Episode 45, Interview with Justice Ken Wise
In American Midstream (Alabama Intrastate), LLC v. Rainbow Energy Marketing Corporation, the Texas Supreme Court held that the trial court improperly inserted the words “scheduled” and “physical” into a contract. By...more
In this case (Scout Energy Mgmt., LLC v. Taylor Properties, No. 23-1014, 2024 WL 5249490 [Tex. Dec. 31, 2024]), the Texas Supreme Court held that vague notations on shut-in royalty check receipts cannot modify an unambiguous...more
This lease royalty case involved a dispute over whether the lessee was permitted to deduct volumes of gas used off the premises to power post-production activities on other gas produced from the same well. Carl v. Hilcorp...more
The Texas Supreme Court (“Court”) recently ruled in favor of Murphy Exploration & Production Company—USA (“Murphy”) in a dispute arising from the location of an offset well on the properties of Shirley Mae Herbst Adams and...more
Recall the Battle of the Bastards: The heroic Lady Sansa and the duplicitous Lord Baelish gallop over the hill to save the foolish Jon Snow from the heinous Ramsey Bolton. In similar fashion, but without the malnourished...more
North Shore Energy v. Harkins interpreted an Option Agreement between landowners and a producer over a 400 acre tract. In football they would say the Texas Supreme Court pancaked the plaintiff. In the law, some would call it...more