Le Norman Operating LLC v. Chalker Energy Partners III, LLC
Decision Date | 03 October 2017 |
Docket Number | NO. 01-15-01099-CV,01-15-01099-CV |
Citation | 547 S.W.3d 27 |
Parties | LE NORMAN OPERATING LLC, Appellant/Cross-Appellee v. CHALKER ENERGY PARTNERS III, LLC ; Raptor Petroleum, LLC; BMW Investments, L.P.; Ark-La-Tex Property Investments, LP ; Remora Oil & GAS, LLC ; Eastern Redbud, LLC; Jimmy Sutton; Vicenergy, LLC; Chris Faulker d/b/a Terro Geological, LLC; Jerry Caylor; Larry Caylor; John Talley; Erickson Resources, LLC; John G. Kremer, Trustee for the 1st Amendment to the Richard E. and Betty V. Kremer Living Trust Dated 1/3/2002; M&D Exploration, LLC; Joe D. Nobles; R. Byron Roach, Trustee, LLC; and Russell L. Roach, Appellees/Cross-Appellants |
Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Jesse R. Pierce, Nugent D. Beaty, Jr., PIERCE & O'NEILL, LLP, 4203 Montrose Blvd., Houston, TX 77006, Adele O. Hedges, 2719 Colquitt, Houston, TX 77098, for Appellant.
Kendyl T. Hanks, GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP, 300 West 6th Street, Suite 2050, Austin, TX 78701, Anthony M. Guerino, II, Laura N. Gleen, 1000 Louisiana Street, 17th Floor, Houston, TX 77002, W. Ray Whitman, Douglas D. D'Arch, Alexander D. Burch, BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP, 811 Main Street, Suite 1100, Houston, TX 77002, Harry L. Scarborough, 1001 Texas Avenue, 11th Floor, Houston, TX 77002, for Appellee.
Panel consists of Justices Keyes, Higley, and Lloyd.
The appellees and cross-appellants, Chalker Energy Partners III, LLC; Raptor Petroleum, LLC; BMW Investments, L.P.; Ark-La-Tex Property Investments, LP; Remora Oil & Gas, LLC; Eastern Redbud, LLC; Jimmy Sutton; Vicenergy, LLC; Chris Faulker d/b/a Terro Geological, LLC; Jerry Caylor; Larry Caylor; John Talley; Erickson Resources, LLC; John G. Kremer, Trustee for the 1st Amendment to the Richard E. and Betty V. Kremer Living Trust Dated 1/3/2002; M&D Exploration, LLC; Joe D. Nobles; R. Byron Roach, Trustee, LLC; and Russell L. Roach (collectively, "the Sellers"), sought to sell valuable oil and gas interests located in the Texas panhandle. Appellant and cross-appellee, Le Norman Operating LLC ("LNO"), was a potential purchaser of those assets. Following a competitive bid process and other negotiations, LNO believed that it had entered into a binding agreement to purchase a portion of the Sellers' oil and gas interests; however, the Sellers ultimately sold the interests to a third party, Jones Energy.1
LNO filed a breach of contract suit against the Sellers, who counter-claimed, asserting their own breach of contract claim and also asserting claims for declaratory judgment, attorney’s fees, and sanctions. After considering numerous summary judgment motions filed by the parties, the trial court granted partial summary judgment in favor the Sellers and dismissed LNO’s breach of contract claim against them. The trial court also granted LNO’s summary judgment motion seeking dismissal of all of the Sellers' counter-claims.
In three issues on appeal, LNO challenges the grounds on which the trial court granted summary judgment on its breach of contract claim, asserting that: (1) it presented evidence raising genuine issues of material fact regarding whether the parties had formed a contract; (2) the trial court erred in granting summary judgment under the Uniform Electronic Transactions Act (the "UETA") based on its conclusions that the parties did not agree to conduct business electronically and that the alleged contract did not contain a valid electronic signature; and (3) it presented evidence raising genuine issues of material fact regarding whether the alleged contract was illusory.
On cross-appeal, the Sellers also assert three issues, arguing that: (1) the trial court erred in rendering a take-nothing summary judgment on their breach of contract claims; (2) LNO was not entitled to summary judgment on the Sellers' counter-claims for declaratory relief and related attorney’s fees; and (3) the trial court erred by failing to award costs to them as prevailing parties as required by Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 131.
We affirm in part and reverse and remand in part.
The Sellers each acquired independent working interests in various oil and gas leases located in the Texas panhandle ("the Kitty Stroker Assets" or "Assets"). The Sellers entered into a Development Agreement to develop among themselves and eventually sell their interests in the Kitty Stroker Assets.
In 2012, the Sellers had completed their intended development of the Assets and were ready to sell. They engaged financial services firm Raymond James to conduct the sale process. Pursuant to their Development Agreement, the Sellers also agreed that Chalker Energy Partners ("Chalker Energy") would function as the Sellers' "designated agent" in conducting the sale. One of the Sellers, Remora, monitored the sales effort and reported events to the other Sellers. The Sellers entered into the "Chalker Engagement Agreement," which set out the process by which potential sales of the Kitty Stroker Assets would be considered.
In August 2012, Chris Simon, the head of asset acquisitions and divestitures at Raymond James and the employee overseeing the sale of the Kitty Stroker Assets, sent an e-mail to potential buyers announcing the sale of the Assets and instructing interested parties to direct all inquiries regarding the sale to him. LNO, a company that owns and operates oil and gas properties in Texas and Oklahoma, received this e-mail and decided to engage in the bidding process.
On September 27, 2012, Simon e-mailed David Le Norman, the principal of LNO, directly with additional information regarding the sale of the Assets. This e-mail asserted that the "Data Room," containing files of detailed information about the Assets, would be available on October 3, 2012, and that bids were due November 1, 2012. Attached to this e-mail were an "Information Memorandum" and a confidentiality agreement.
On September 30, 2012, Le Norman, on behalf of LNO, and Bill Dukes, on behalf of Chalker Energy, signed the confidentiality agreement ("Confidentiality Agreement") so that LNO could view the materials in the Data Room and participate in the bid process. LNO agreed to limit its use and disclosure of certain confidential information provided by Chalker Energy to "the evaluation and the possible acquisition by [LNO] of [the Assets]."
In relevant part, section 18 of the Confidentiality Agreement provided:
Finally, the Confidentiality Agreement provided that the parties agreed to waive consequential damages: "Neither party shall be liable to the other party hereunder for any special, indirect, incidental, consequential, punitive or exemplary damages of any kind or character, including lost profits or loss of business opportunity ... arising out of this agreement."
In October 2012, Le Norman attended what the parties call "the Data Room Presentation," a slide presentation created by Raymond James regarding the use of the virtual data room, which was a virtual file room where detailed information on the Kitty Stroker Assets—including maps, legal descriptions, production projections, and a form Purchase and Sale Agreement ("PSA")—was available for potential buyers to review. The Data Room Presentation was prepared "solely for informational purposes," and the presentation included a slide describing the bid procedure. Consistent with the Chalker Engagement Agreement among the Sellers, this slide provided that once Chalker Energy received bids, each Seller "shall be given 24 hours to elect to sell their interest once the purchase price has been determined." It further provided, "Upon the negotiation of the PSA, each [Seller] shall be given 48 hours to elect to accept the terms of the PSA and execute the appropriate documents."
To continue reading
Request your trial-
James Constr. Grp., LLC v. Westlake Chem. Corp.
...and parties shall "make no claim" or "no claim shall be made," as a waiver. See Le Norman Operating LLC v. Chalker Energy Partners III, LLC , 547 S.W.3d 27, 32 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2017, pet. granted) (contract providing "neither party shall be liable to the other party" for conse......
-
Bujnoch v. Copano Energy, LLC
...even when the sender's name does not appear anywhere in the body of the email. See id. ; see also Le Norman Operating LLC v. Chalker Energy Partners III, LLC , 547 S.W.3d 27, 47-48 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2017, no pet. h.) (same).This Court has not expressly adopted or rejected Cunni......
-
Chalker Energy Partners Iii, LLC v. Le Norman Operating LLC
...& Com. Code § 322.007(c) ("If a law requires a record to be in writing, an electronic record satisfies the law.").4 547 S.W.3d 27 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2017).5 Petitioners are Chalker Energy Partners III, LLC; R. Byron Roach, Trustee, LLC; Russell L. Roach; Raptor Petroleum, LLC; B......