Legal Opinion · Dissent
Noble Energy, Inc. v. Conocophillips Company
Texas Supreme Court
Decided June 23, 2017No. 15-0502Published
1DissentJustice Johnson
Í disagree with the Court for essentially two reasons. First, the Court says that “the issue before us is not whether the bankruptcy proceedings were conducted as théy should have been.” Ante at 783. But that is precisely the issue. Alma was not authorized to assign the Exchange Agreement, which I agree was an executory contract, unless it was done pursuant to and in conformance with Bankruptcy Code section 365.11 U.S.C. § 365.1 Even Conoco agrees:
Alma could not have assigned any exec-utory contract—the Exchange Agreement or anything else—in its bankruptcy to [Noble] under Texas law; it could…
2Cases cited37 opinions
- Sun Oil Co. (Delaware) v. MadeleyTexas Supreme Court · 1981
- Browning Manufacturing v. Mims (In Re Coastal Plains, Inc.)Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1999
- Lawrence Hamilton v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Company, an Illinois Corporation David's Restaurant SupplyCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2001
- Ryan Operations G.P., a Virginia General Partnership and Nvr, L.P., a Virginia Limited Partnership, on Behalf of Its Division, Nvr Building Products Co. v. Santiam-Midwest Lumber Co., an Oregon Corporation Furman Lumber, Inc., a Massachusetts Corporation Bright Wood Corp., an Oregon Corporation. Bright Wood Corp., Third Party v. Forrest Paint Co., Inc., an Oregon Corporation Guardsman Products, Inc., a Delaware Corporation, Third Party Ryan Operations G.P. And Nvr, L.P. And Its Division, Nvr Building Products Co.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1996
- Walter Burnes v. Pemco AeroplexCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 2002
32 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.