- 23 -
opinion was based principally upon the District Court’s orders
issued before decedent’s death regarding the liability issue in
that case.
In Mr. Glasser’s opinion, the documents relating to the
Jarvis Christian litigation indicated that there was a great deal
of uncertainty surrounding Exxon’s claim against the royalty
owners. On one hand, the District Court found that Exxon had the
right to seek recovery from the royalty owners under a theory of
equitable recoupment. On the other hand, Mr. Glasser believed
that the District Court’s orders were discouraging to Exxon
concerning the probability that Exxon would prevail on its claim.
Mr. Glasser believed that Exxon and the royalty owners, at the
time of decedent’s death, could have anticipated that there was a
“greater likelihood” that Exxon would be awarded substantially
less than all of the damages that it claimed.
As part of his valuation determination, Mr. Glasser relied
on the District Court’s orders entered on August 25 and November
7, 1989. In the August 25, 1989, order, the District Court
declared that Exxon had a viable cause of action for equitable
recoupment against the royalty owners, but it also noted that the
court was inclined to dismiss Exxon’s claim against the royalty
owners. In the November 7, 1989, order, the District Court
stated that it “remains persuaded that Exxon at least owed the
royalty interest owners the duty to act as a reasonably prudent
Page: Previous 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011