Legal Update

tpltblogger10 Comments

Ted writes with the following (thanks Ted!):

On Monday, July 8th an unopposed motion was filed. “MOTION Unopposed Motion for an Order Setting a Schedule For Counterclaim Plaintiffs’ Motion for a Declaratory Judgment and Preliminary Injunction filed by ART-FGT Family Partners Limited, Horizon Kinetics LLC, Eric L Oliver, SoftVest LP (Falconer, Russell)”

Translated, this means both side have agreed to a court hearing on the Declaratory Judgement (motion to dismiss with a declared judgement in favor of HK, Oliver, etc). The judge is going to take the argument briefs from each side and there will then be a hearing where each side will present their arguments, with questions from Judge Boyle before ahe makes a ruling. Before this agreement her ruling was going to be a written response without a hearing.

There has been some date movement on the filing dates for this motion. The Trustees have been granted additional time to file their arguments against this motion, now July 26th, a move from the original date of July 15th. HK/Oliver, etc will have until August 5th to respond. Since a time extension was granted to the Trustees, often one will granted routinely to HK/Oliver, etc if requested. However, if they feel the arguments of the Trustees are weak, they may just hold to the August 5 date, so they can move faster to the hearing.

The Judge wanting a hearing suggests she is interested in asking questions and uncovering additional information that may not be in the briefs before making a ruling. This also suggests its an important ruling, so going by the book is important to avoid appeals.

Fyi: source information is below. https://www.pacermonitor.com/public/case/28272476/Texas_Pacific_Land_Trust_et_al_v_Oliver

10 thoughts on “Legal Update”

  1. Good stuff. Thank you. Ted – is this the motion where Softvest wants to get a ruling on whether or not Barry’s election was valid in 2017? Does this only apply to that part of the lawsuit?

    Liked by 1 person

    • Yes. This is part of the declaratory judgement motion by HK/Softvet/Oliver to dismiss the primary first claim filed by the trustees which stopped the election cycle. They are also asking for an injunction to be issued on not allowing any decisions by Trustee Barry, including challenging his election. If the court agrees he was not properly elected, a possible outcome is another election would be needed for what would then be an open position.

      The declaratory judgement motion is strongly written. There are many examples of case law. The claim is many obviously wrong things were done by the trustees, the facts are not in dispute, and we have no need for depositions. We just need a ruling on our situation, and a re-establishment of shareholder rights.

      The difficulty for the trustees is case law is going to be thin that supports their last minute legal shenanigans. That could be one reason why they have asked for more time to prepare their brief. Will it contain good case examples of similar situations that support their position, or will it be more editorial creating doubts and straw man arguments about Oliver? The more editorial it is, the weaker is their case.

      I can hardly wait to read it, and the response from HK/Softvest/Oliver before the hearing!

      Like

  2. Do you know if there is likely to be a dial-in number where we could listen to the hearing? Otherwise, I may be making another trip to Dallas.

    Like

    • Thanks Ted. So far the best riposte by the trustees has been their accusation that HK/Softvest actually just wanted to take over the company the whole time. Which if not before, is probably true at this point. Trustees have let slip too many chances for meaningful settlement. Feels like HK very happy for court to decide this now. Can’t wait to read the briefs.

      310, can you do courtroom sketches as well? Lol.

      Liked by 1 person

Comments are closed.