Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Paul Butler on July 28, 2016 at 1:10am

On page 30 of the decision, Shell's position (Shell cited no legal authority for its position) concerning drafts is summarized:

"The court next turns to SWEPI‘s proposed interpretation of the leases, by which SWEPI contends that it could dishonor the drafts for any reason, or for no reason at all, until the ninety-day banking period expired. (See Doc. 62 at 11-12). Beyond a summary assertion that its view ―is objectively reasonable,‖ (id. at 12), SWEPI identifies no substantive support within the lease documents themselves to suggest that its bonus obligation did not accrue immediately."

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Paul Butler on July 28, 2016 at 8:08am

Does anyone know what happened to the Walney case?

The court notes the pendency of a class action asserting similar breach of contract claims against SWEPI in the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania. On September 14, 2015, Chief Judge Joy Conti Flowers certified a class of plaintiffs comprising persons who, on or after March 14, 2009, executed an oil and gas lease with SWEPI and in exchange received a bonus draft which ―was neither paid nor replaced by a subsequently issued draft.‖ Walney v. SWEPI LP, No. 1:13-CV-102, 2015 WL 5333541, at *28-29 (W.D. Pa. Sept. 14, 2015).

• ▶ Reply