{"id":78,"date":"2019-01-02T01:28:16","date_gmt":"2019-01-02T01:28:16","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/bow.tailfishdev-androvett.com\/?page_id=78"},"modified":"2021-06-30T18:19:08","modified_gmt":"2021-06-30T23:19:08","slug":"energy-and-technology","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/bowslaw.com\/practice-areas\/energy-and-technology\/","title":{"rendered":"Energy and Technology"},"content":{"rendered":"

[vc_row full_width=”stretch_row” css=”.vc_custom_1559176535548{background-color: #e7e7e7 !important;}”][vc_column][vc_column_text][\/vc_column_text][\/vc_column][\/vc_row][vc_row full_width=”stretch_row” css=”.vc_custom_1549551666185{background-color: #e7e7e7 !important;}”][vc_column width=”3\/4″ css=”.vc_custom_1559254296558{padding-right: 48px !important;}”][vc_column_text]Bissinger, Oshman, Williams & Strasburger LLP represents a wide range of businesses in the energy and technology sectors. These include a variety of oilfield services, exploration and production, midstream, pipelines and terminals, trucking, barge companies, and offshore transport. Many of the cases we have handled involve commodities trading, sales, and supply contracts.<\/p>\n

We take the often complex facts in these cases and simplify them for judges, juries, and arbitrators. We do that by focusing on the handful of major issues that dominate any case. In doing so, we save our clients both time and money. Many firms are happy to chase lead after lead, dragging cases on for months and even years. This puts more money in their pockets, but doesn\u2019t necessarily lead to a better outcome. That is not how we work. We stay focused on the big picture and your best interests.[\/vc_column_text][\/vc_column][vc_column width=”1\/4″][vc_column_text el_class=”desktop desktoponly”]\n\n\n

\n\n\t\n\t\n\t\t\n
\n

Practice Areas<\/a><\/h2>\n Corporate Fiduciary and Securities<\/a>\n Energy and Technology<\/a>\n\t\t Commercial Real Estate, Finance, and Banking<\/a>\n Trade Secrets, Noncompetes, and Executive Compensation<\/a>\n\t\t Tort and Policyholder<\/a>\n Construction<\/a>\n <\/div>\n\n\t\n\t\n\t\n<\/div>\n[\/vc_column_text][\/vc_column][\/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]<\/p>\n

Representative Experience<\/h2>\n
\n\n\t\n\t\n\t\t\n
\n

Trial for Drilling Contractor<\/h3>\n

Jason Williams and Erin Bullard represented a water well drilling contractor in a suit against a landowner for failure to pay for drilling services in Ochiltree County, Texas. We successfully obtained death penalty sanctions against the landowner for discovery abuse that resulted in the trial court dismissing with prejudice the landowner\u2019s numerous counterclaims. The Amarillo Court of Appeals upheld the dismissal of the landowner\u2019s counterclaims on appeal. Upon remand to the trial court, Jason Williams prevailed in a bench trial obtaining a full recovery of the amount owed plus attorney\u2019s fees.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n <\/div> \n\t\t\n

\n

$31.2 Million Judgment for Marathon Oil<\/h3>\n

At a prior firm, Philip Werner represented Marathon Oil Co. in a contract damage claim against a construction company to recover damages and expenses connected with a crane accident and release of toxic hydrofluoric acid. The accident occurred when a crane that was lifting a piece of heavy equipment dropped the equipment on a tank. The tank, which contained hydrofluoric acid, released the vapors. The hydrofluoric acid vapor release forced a reported 3,000 residents to evacuate the area.<\/p>\n

After a trial that lasted nearly three weeks, a Harris County jury found both the defendant, CBI Na-Con, and plaintiff Marathon Oil negligent in connection with the accident. The jury placed 95 percent of the liability for the accident on CBI Na-Con and 5 percent on Marathon Oil. Marathon owned the refinery; CBI Na-Con was its contractor.<\/p>\n

The court\u2019s judgment ordered CBI Na-Con to pay Marathon Oil almost $11.9 million in actual damages, another $925,000 under an indemnity agreement, and $10 million in punitive damages. The judgment also ordered CBI Na-Con to pay another $8.4 million in prejudgment interest and court costs. The case received widespread attention, including a detailed report in the Texas Lawyer.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n <\/div> \n\t\t\n

\n

Anadarko Petroleum Corporation v. Sinclair, et al.<\/h3>\n

Obtained substantial recovery from royalty interest owner on a disputed overpayment. The matter had been pending and largely dormant for nearly six years at the time of the Firm\u2019s engagement. Within a few months of the Firm\u2019s retention and the reengagement of the litigation, the matter settled on terms favorable to the client.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n <\/div> \n\t\t\n

\n

Defense of downhole tool manufacturer<\/h3>\n

We defended the manufacturer and supplier of a mechanical vertical inclination well survey tool known as a Wireless Drift Indicator against breach of warranty claims from a bankrupt operator that drilled a deviated hole that had to be sidetracked. After analyzing the drilling reports and interviewing and deposing rig personnel regarding key events, we determined that the operator failed to follow the survey tool operating instructions and made critical errors during drilling and in its handling of the bottom hole assembly. The case settled favorably shortly after we argued our summary judgment motion.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n <\/div> \n\t\t\n

\n

Successful Resolution of Complex Multidistrict Permian Basin Investment, Contract, and Tortious-Interference Dispute<\/h3>\n

Represented Petro-Raider and related entities in multidistrict litigation in Reagan County, Midland County, and the Texas Railroad Commission. Petro-Raider sued Golden Gate and Kindee in Reagan County for breach of contract and fraud. In a countersuit, Golden Gate and Kindee filed a tortious interference and breach-of-contract lawsuit against Petro-Raider, alleging that Petro-Raider\u2019s complaint before the RRC tortiously interfered with its rights. After filing comprehensive summary judgment motion<\/span><\/a> on defendants\u2019 claims, this case settled favorably.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n <\/div> \n\t\t\n

\n

Favorable Settlement for Power Plant against Engineering Contractor<\/h3>\n

Represented plaintiff, independent power producer Desert Power, in case involving gas-fired power plant. Desert Power alleged fraudulent inducement and breach of contract in connection with defendants\u2019 emissions reduction combustion system. After obtaining fast-track scheduling order and conducting focused pretrial discovery in Judge Mark Davidson\u2019s court, case settled confidentially.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n <\/div> \n\t\t\n

\n

Successful Defense of Pipeline Technology Patent Infringement Judgment Enforcement Litigation<\/h3>\n

We defended two inventors against whose former startup company a major energy company had secured a $10 million patent infringement judgment. Inventors were subject to a motion for contempt, allegations of fraudulent transfer and conspiracy, and other claims for relief in multiple federal court proceedings. Inventors\u2019 new company had filed new claims of patent infringement against same major energy company relating to new patents over different technology. Case settled confidentially under a mutual settlement agreement.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n <\/div> \n\t\t\n

\n

Confidential Settlement in Service Contract and Defamation Arbitration Between Frac Provider and E&P Company<\/h3>\n

Obtained favorable confidential settlement in complex dispute between oilfield services company and large exploration and production company arising out of boom of 2017 and shortage of frac crew and frac equipment. Dispute involved multiple issues ranging from cover damages in rapidly changing markets, reasonableness of legal bases for fishing and cleanup expenses; counterclaims for disparagement, defamation, and unpaid invoices. Case settled within three weeks of final arbitration hearing.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n <\/div> \n\t\t\n

\n

Winning $2,679,185.00 Arbitration Award for Plaintiffs\u2019 Patent Lawyers against Former Client<\/h3>\n

Recovered substantially all relief sought for law firm cheated out of contingent fee from settlement of patent-infringement litigation. Arbitrator\u2019s award included recovery of vast majority of attorneys\u2019 fees, noting that \u201cMr. Bissinger did an excellent job for his client (as did all counsel herein) in a complex matter involving valuation of patent infringement claims and several legal theories.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/div>\n <\/div> \n\t\t\n

\n

Service as Arbitrator in International Chemical Supply Contract Dispute<\/h3>\n

Served as a party-appointed arbitrator in this dispute over an alleged breach of a supply contract for a large quantity of orthoxylene. Case involved complex issues under article 2 of the Uniform Commercial Code. After the arbitration panel issued its award, the case settled.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n <\/div> \n\t\t\n

\n

Dismissal of Lost-Profits Claim against Oilfield Chemicals Supplier<\/h3>\n

Defended oilfield chemicals supplier against $6 million lost-profits claim filed in Judge Ewing Werlein\u2019s court. Filed motion for summary judgment<\/span><\/a> on plaintiff\u2019s lost-profits claim before the initial scheduling conference. Plaintiff dismissed<\/span><\/a> claim shortly thereafter.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n <\/div> \n\t\t\n

\n

Take-Nothing Jury Verdict and Judgment for Oilfield Equipment Company Defendant in Complex Tortious-Interference and Fraudulent Transfer Trial<\/h3>\n

Defended De Bie Midland, Inc. in complex tortious interference and fraudulent transfer case over control of oil-and-gas equipment company. Hired six weeks before trial. After four-day trial, jury returned verdict<\/span> <\/a>denying all claims against De Bie Midland. Judge John Coselli entered take-nothing judgment<\/span><\/a> for De Bie Midland.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n <\/div> \n\t\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n<\/div>\n[\/vc_column_text][\/vc_column][\/vc_row][vc_row full_width=”stretch_row” css=”.vc_custom_1559584599217{background-color: #eeeeee !important;}” el_class=”mobile mobileonly”][vc_column][vc_column_text]\n\n\n

\n\n\t\n\t\n\t\t\n
\n

Practice Areas<\/a><\/h2>\n Corporate Fiduciary and Securities<\/a>\n Energy and Technology<\/a>\n\t\t Commercial Real Estate, Finance, and Banking<\/a>\n Trade Secrets, Noncompetes, and Executive Compensation<\/a>\n\t\t Tort and Policyholder<\/a>\n Construction<\/a>\n <\/div>\n\n\t\n\t\n\t\n<\/div>\n[\/vc_column_text][\/vc_column][\/vc_row]<\/p>\n<\/div>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

[vc_row full_width=”stretch_row” css=”.vc_custom_1559176535548{background-color: #e7e7e7 !important;}”][vc_column][vc_column_text][\/vc_column_text][\/vc_column][\/vc_row][vc_row full_width=”stretch_row” css=”.vc_custom_1549551666185{background-color: #e7e7e7 !important;}”][vc_column width=”3\/4″ css=”.vc_custom_1559254296558{padding-right: 48px !important;}”][vc_column_text]Bissinger, Oshman, Williams & Strasburger LLP represents a wide range of businesses in the energy and technology sectors. These include a variety of oilfield services, exploration and production, midstream, pipelines and terminals, trucking, barge companies, and offshore transport. Many of the cases we… Read more »<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":4,"featured_media":0,"parent":52,"menu_order":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","template":"page-practice-areas.php","meta":{"footnotes":"","_links_to":"","_links_to_target":""},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/bowslaw.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/78"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/bowslaw.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/bowslaw.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/page"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/bowslaw.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/4"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/bowslaw.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=78"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/bowslaw.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/78\/revisions"}],"up":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/bowslaw.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/52"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/bowslaw.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=78"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}