More Stories

A team from Vinson & Elkins is representing Clayton Williams Energy in its agreement to sell substantially all of the company’s assets in the Giddings Area of East Central Texas to an undisclosed buyer for $400 million.

A team from Vinson & Elkins is representing Clayton Williams Energy in its agreement to sell substantially all of the company’s assets in the Giddings Area of East Central Texas to an undisclosed buyer for $400 million.

Baker Botts on Tuesday announced its involvement in two acquisitions of assets in South Texas’ Eagle Ford Shale and the Northeast’s Marcellus Shale. Lawyers from Akin Gump and Carrington Coleman were also involved in the transactions.

Ryan Maierson could probably use a nap. The Houston-based corporate partner at Latham & Watkins led three deals in the past two days that total nearly $4 billion – and they were just as complex as they were valuable. Andrews Kurth’s Mike O’Leary led the other side for two of the three deals. Attorneys from Locke Lord, Thompson & Knight and V&E were involved as well.

The Texas Lawbook has all the details on the deals, which Maierson said are reflective of some optimism in energy sector deal flow.

The SEC’s Fort Worth office announced Tuesday that it has charged a North Texas oil and gas company and two of its senior officials with violating federal securities laws. Southlake Resources Group, the company’s founder and its vice president agreed to pay the SEC $5.4 million for their role in a dozen fraudulent oil and gas schemes that impacted more than 70 investors.

The SEC’s Fort Worth office announced Tuesday that it has charged a North Texas oil and gas company and two of its senior officials with violating federal securities laws. Southlake Resources Group, the company’s founder and its vice president agreed to pay the SEC $5.4 million for their role in a dozen fraudulent oil and gas schemes that impacted more than 70 investors.

Before the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent decision in Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, courts frequently collapsed the element of “concrete and particularized,” requiring that a plaintiff merely demonstrate that the injury affected him or her in a personal and individual way.

But following the Supreme Court’s guidance in the Spokeo decision, courts are required to analyze the separate and independent element of “concreteness,” which the Court defined as “quite different from particularization.” This article examines that separate element and post-Spokeo decisions interpreting it.

Before the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent decision in Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, courts frequently collapsed the element of “concrete and particularized,” requiring that a plaintiff merely demonstrate that the injury affected him or her in a personal and individual way.

But following the Supreme Court’s guidance in the Spokeo decision, courts are required to analyze the separate and independent element of “concreteness,” which the Court defined as “quite different from particularization.” This article examines that separate element and post-Spokeo decisions interpreting it.

Before the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent decision in Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, courts frequently collapsed the element of “concrete and particularized,” requiring that a plaintiff merely demonstrate that the injury affected him or her in a personal and individual way.
But following the Supreme Court’s guidance in the Spokeo decision, courts are required to analyze the separate and independent element of “concreteness,” which the Court defined as “quite different from particularization.” This article examines that separate element and post-Spokeo decisions interpreting it.