mineral lease

mineral lease - B. All the plaintiffs said that theyve...

Info iconThis preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Calvin Nguyen Professor Bohn Article Report 7/28/2011 Multiple Plaintiffs Vs. Multiple Landowners 1. The name of the website is MorningStarPublishing.com, dated on 1/5/2011. 2. The dispute is between multiple plaintiffs against Chesapeake Energy Corp., along with Michigan companies O.I.L. Niagaran, LLC, Northern Michigan Exploration Company, LLC, and Western Land Services. 3. A. Most of the plaintiffs had a lease agreement with the landowners for mineral rights, but the company’s terms for canceling the contract is because if the title is not merchantable, they would have to cancel the contract. This case is currently upwards of $600,000, and that’s without any estimated royalty earnings.
Background image of page 1
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: B. All the plaintiffs said that theyve signed a contract, and they must follow through with it. The defendants, said that any time there is a title defect they have to secure the title, and the plaintiffs also have to secure the title or else they dont have a mineral lease. 4. The article doesnt offer any solution for the dispute but I think the big corporations will win the case because all of the transactions complained of require the lessor to deliver title to the leasehold interest that is acceptable to the lessee, and none of the plaintiffs were able to do so. These requirements are common in the mineral oil energy leases....
View Full Document

This note was uploaded on 11/06/2011 for the course BUS 102 taught by Professor Lahai during the Spring '11 term at Everett CC.

Ask a homework question - tutors are online