Meaning unclear to me - is it my fault?

3 posts in this topic

What does the following mean:

 

"The Sabine case outcome (issued in 2016 by a New York bankruptcy court) held that gas gathering
contracts did not create easements that "run with the land" and are therefore
rejectable in Chapter 11."

 

Does it mean that because the contracts are rejectable beacuse they didn´t create easements?

Or does it mean the contracts didn´t create easements and therefore aren´t rejectable?

 

Is the wording of this sentence as ambiguous as I think it is or am I merely "standing on the hose" :huh:?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The contracts are void during a bankruptcy because no permanent easement exists. I would have to know what part in a bankruptcy proceeding this property takes. If you have a lawyer, they could check if the Alta Mesa or Badlands exceptions apply.

 

ETC: rejectable to void

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wording is not  ambiguous but could be restated as follows if it is clearer:

 

The Sabine case held that gas gathering contracts are rejectable in Chapter 11 because they do not create easements that "run with the land".

 

Background on 'Sabine' and on the Alta Mesa and Badlands stuff that Alex references which will probably help with the rest of your translation.

 

 

 

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now