- 16 -
claim was enforceable at the time of decedent's death. We
disagree.
The record clearly indicates that the issue in Exxon I was
whether Exxon had overcharged its crude oil purchasers for oil
produced in the HFU. Contrary to petitioner's argument, Exxon I
did not consider whether Exxon had overpaid its royalty and
working interest owners in the HFU. While Exxon attempted to
join the Jarvis Christian plaintiffs as indispensable parties,
its efforts were unsuccessful. Rather, the Jarvis Christian
plaintiffs were invited to intervene in Exxon I if they "desired
'an earlier determination' of their claims" that Exxon should
continue paying them royalties based on the higher price under
the two-tier system. United States v. Exxon Corp., 773 F.2d at
1271 n.32. In affirming the decision of the District Court in
Exxon I, the Temporary Emergency Court of Appeals stated that the
decision in no way affected any rights or responsibilities of
other interest owners in the HFU. See id. at 1271. In addition,
the January 16, 1990, joint motion for summary judgment filed by
the defendants in the Jarvis Christian litigation (and adopted by
the Allen parties) recognized as much in stating that "the courts
[in Exxon I] explicitly said that Exxon's liability was
predicated solely upon its own misconduct and not upon any notion
of vicarious liability arising out of obligations owed by other
interest owners to the government."
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011