$1.3 Billion Public Offering
GableGotwals represented an energy company in connection the issuance of $650 million of 30-year senior notes and $650 million of 5-year senior notes.
GableGotwals represented an energy company in connection the issuance of $650 million of 30-year senior notes and $650 million of 5-year senior notes.
The Firm represented the seller in the purchase and sale of $20 million of drilling rigs and the related financing.
GableGotwals represented the lender in the negotiation and documentation of a $13.1 million term and revolving loan facility to a local oil and gas producer.
GableGotwals represented the lender in the negotiation and documentation of an $14.5 million term loan facility to an oil and gas producer.
GableGotwals advised an energy company in connection with filing of an automatic shelf registration statement.
GableGotwals represented an energy company in acquiring a $400 million 364-day revolving credit facility for working capital, mergers and acquisitions, refinancing of indebtedness and other general corporate purposes.
A producer behind one of Superior’s gas processing plants claimed entitlement to a percentage of Superior’s condensate proceeds even though the contract did not require it. Superior won in district court, the producer appealed, but Oklahoma’s Court of Civil Appeals affirmed judgment for Superior. On June 2nd, the Oklahoma Supreme Court denied the producer’s Petition for Certiorari (Case No. 111,373). In addition, the court also awarded Superior 100% of its attorneys’ fees, just under $200,000.00.
GableGotwals secured a unanimous victory from the Oklahoma Supreme Court regarding the necessity of takings under the power of eminent domain. The Firm’s client, a FERC interstate natural gas pipeline, brought a condemnation action to acquire additional easement rights, including access easements over existing roads because the existing agreements between the parties did not provide reliable access to the pipelines and facilities for erosion control and maintenance work. The landowner challenged the necessity of the taking, arguing that the preexisting easements preempted any later exercise of eminent domain and that the taking did not meet the legal standard of necessity for public use. The Oklahoma Supreme Court rejected the landowner’s arguments and ruled in favor of the Firm’s client. In affirming the district court’s ruling, the Oklahoma Supreme Court upheld well settled law that the right of eminent domain cannot be contracted away, meaning that preexisting easements do not prevent later exercise of eminent domain. The Court also reiterated that condemning authorities, such as pipelines, have wide discretion in determining the location and routes of their easements. The Court concluded that the easement rights sought in the condemnation action were necessary for the public use.