Third Circuit Denies Automatic Perfection of Oil Producer Liens
In a recently decided, but long-running dispute, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has found that oil producers do not hold automatically perfected security interests in product they sell to midstream intermediaries, nor are the proceeds generated through the subsequent sale of such product held in an implied trust for the benefit of the upstream producers, as held in Arrow Oil & Gas v. J. Aron (In re SemCrude), 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 12975 (3d Cir. July 19). In its decision, the Third Circuit determined that an automatically perfected security interest or implied trust would result in "chaos" in an industry where oil is comingled and sold multiple times in the stream of commerce.
August 03, 2017 at 05:15 PM
7 minute read
In a recently decided, but long-running dispute, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has found that oil producers do not hold automatically perfected security interests in product they sell to midstream intermediaries, nor are the proceeds generated through the subsequent sale of such product held in an implied trust for the benefit of the upstream producers, as held in Arrow Oil & Gas v. J. Aron (In re SemCrude), 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 12975 (3d Cir. July 19). In its decision, the Third Circuit determined that an automatically perfected security interest or implied trust would result in “chaos” in an industry where oil is comingled and sold multiple times in the stream of commerce.
SemGroup L.P. was a midstream oil service provider that, along with its subsidiaries, bought oil from thousands of producers, including those located in Kansas, Oklahoma and Texas (collectively, the appellants). SemGroup then resold the oil to downstream purchasers, including J. Aron & Co. and BP Oil Supply Co. (collectively, the appellees). Per industry custom, SemGroup expressly warranted oil sales as being “free from all royalties, liens, and encumbrances.”
SemGroup also engaged in trading oil futures with the appellees. SemGroup sold “call options,” whereby the purchaser of the option would pay SemGroup an upfront premium in exchange for the right to purchase an amount of oil at a set price on a certain date. If on the futures option date, the market price for oil was less than the option price, the option became worthless leaving SemGroup with the profit from the upfront premium. If, however, on the option maturity date, the market price for oil exceeded the strike price, SemGroup would lose money as it could have sold the oil for more on the open market but was constrained by the options price.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllOffit Kurman Scores Summary Judgment in Long-Running Legal Mal Suit Over Bankruptcy Fallout
3 minute readPhila., Del. Firms Handling UArts' Ch. 7 Petition Fall Far Below Top Bankruptcy Rates
3 minute readReal Property Sale Proceeds Must Be Paid First to Unavoided Portion of IRS Tax Lien
7 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Infant Formula Judge Sanctions Kirkland's Jim Hurst: 'Overtly Crossed the Lines'
- 2Abbott, Mead Johnson Win Defense Verdict Over Preemie Infant Formula
- 3Preparing Your Law Firm for 2025: Smart Ways to Embrace AI & Other Technologies
- 4Greenberg Traurig Initiates String of Suits Following JPMorgan Chase's 'Infinite Money Glitch'
- 5Data-Driven Legal Strategies
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250