Replies to post #13882 on Mesa Offshore Trust (fka MOSH)

[Daylas]

Woodside was notified of the situation...and had a chance to back out..and they choose to side with PXD...That was how it was explained to me...fwiw

[ronpopeil]

<<If Woodside was mislead by PXD into this whole deal and was assured by PXD this was no illegal farmout and everything was legit, couldnt Woodside possibly have a case against PXD>>

Yes, Woodside could bring an action against PXD if that is the case, imo.


<<Or does the fact that Woodside hasnt filed against PXD possibly mean that they share knowledge and responsibilty for this illegal farmout>>

It's hard to say without having first hand, inside knowledge of what both parties knew, when they knew it etc. Perhaps Woodside is showing unity with PXD because they never thought the case would make it this far so there was no reason to immediately attack PXD. I have no doubt that if Woodside does see this as being possibly a very harmful outcome for them, they will do what's best for them and leave PXD behind, imo. If Woodside is harmed from this lawsuit and they truly were unaware about the illegal farmout, i would think they would sue the pants off of PXD.


<<Obviously MOSH Holdings has reason to feel Woodside is a guilty contributor to this illegal farmout or they wouldnt have included them in the lawsuit>>

I am sure MOSH has evidence which shows who knew what, when they knew it, what each of them did with regard to the farmout etc. However, even if it's not as black and white, MOSH had to bring in Woodside because it wouldn't be prudent for them to presume Woodside is innocent and just sue PXD. If Woodside is really innocent, then Woodside can try to prove it to the jury but that is not for MOSH to determine beforehand.

[badnews2]

Woodside was ALSO assured by the Trustees office. Both sides told them the deal was legit. Why does everyone seem to forget that fact and blow it off? They will get off the hook.........

And I would also like to see an answer to Shisyas post 13887.

[volenspros]

that's the 1.2 billion dollar question leb. what i found interesting is that the farmout agreement curiously and purposefully omitted a very important clause.

guess which one?

the clause that warranted title to the land / lease was omitted. typically, that's a standard inclusion wherein the party putting the deal together gives assurance to the other party that title is free and clear of defects or third parties who may interfere....

while wse may have been mislead a bit, one has to believe their lawyers wouldn't have been duped so easily and that they knew something was rotten in denmark. these guys are taking the only position they can right now - which is one of silence.

but to answer your question, i believe wse has grounds to sue pxd for screwing this deal up. it'll be fun to watch when the shooting starts and the allocation of liability gets passed around. let's see who takes how big a chunk.