Filter This View

  • In re: Ursa Operating Co., LLC

    Publication Date: 2024-02-05
    Practice Area: Bankruptcy
    Industry: Energy
    Court: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
    Judge: Judge Porter
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: George A. Barton, Barton and Burrows, LLC, Mission, KS for appellants.
    for defendant: Duston K. McFaul, Maegan Quejada, Sidley Austin LLP, Houston, TX; Robert S. Velevis, Sidley Austin LLP, Dallas, TX; Robert S. Brady, Edmon L. Morton, Kenneth J. Enos, Joseph M. Mulvihill, Young Conaway Stargatt & Taylor, Wilmington, DE; Ana Alfonso, Willkie Farr & Gallagher, New York, NY; John H. Knight, Amanda R. Steele, Richards Layton & Finger, Wilmington, DE for appellees.
    Case Number: 22-1729

    Lower courts erroneously dismissed adversary complaint of property owners to recover improperly withheld oil and gas royalties where property owners, not extractor, had an equitable interest in the funds, and thus a constructive trust was an appropriate mechanism for relief.

  • In re: Ursa Operating Co., LLC

    Publication Date: 2023-12-18
    Practice Area: Bankruptcy
    Industry: Energy | Mining and Resources
    Court: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
    Judge: Judge Porter
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: George A. Barton, Barton and Burrows LLC, Mission, KS for appellants.
    for defendant: Duston K. McFaul, Maegan Quejada, Sidley Austin LLP, Houston, TX; Robert S. Velevis, Sidley Austin LLP, Dallas, TX; Robert S. Brady, Edmon L. Morton, Kenneth J. Enos, Joseph M. Mulvihill, Young Conaway Stargatt & Taylor LLP. Wilmington, Delaware; Ana Alfonso, Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP, New York, NY; John H. Knight, Amanda R. Steele, Richards Layton & Finger, Wilmington, DE for appellees.
    Case Number: 22-1729

    Wrongfully retained mineral royalties were not part of a debtor's estate where applicable state law granted lessors a property interest proceeds, meaning debtor had no equitable interest in the funds.

  • United States v. United States Sugar Corp.

    Publication Date: 2023-08-07
    Practice Area: Mergers and Acquisitions
    Industry: Federal Government | Food and Beverage | Manufacturing
    Court: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
    Judge: Judge Porter
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Jonathan S. Kanter, Doha Mekki, Maggie Goodlander, David B. Lawrence, Daniel E. Haar, Nikolai G. Levin, Peter M. Bozzo, Brian Hanna, Jonathan Y. Mincer, U.S. Department of Justice Antitrust Division, Washington, DC for plaintiff-appellant.
    for defendant: Melissa Arbus Sherry, Amanda P. Reeves, Lindsey S. Champlin, David L. Johnson, Charles S. Dameron, Latham & Watkins LLP, Washington, DC; Lawrence E. Buterman, Latham & Watkins LLP, New York, NY; Christopher S. Yates, Latham & Watkins LLP, San Francisco, CA; Jack B. Blumenfeld, Brian P. Egan, Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP, Wilmington, DE; Timothy G. Cameron, Peter T. Barbur, David R. Marriott, Daniel K. Zach, Michael K. Zaken, Lindsey J. Timlin, Hannah L. Dwyer, Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP, New York, NY; Amanda L. Wait, Norton Rose Fulbright US LLP, Washington, DC; Kelly E. Farnan, Richards, Layton & Finger, P.A., Wilmington, DE; Peter J. Schwingler, Stinson LLP, Minneapolis, MN; Daniel K. Hogan, Hogan McDaniel, Wilmington, DE for defendant-appellees.
    Case Number: 22-2806

    Rather than employ the hypothetical monopolist test analysis for determining product market under Section 7 of the Clayton Act, the Third Circuit affirmed the District Court's analysis using the actual market for refined sugar as the product market definition.