- 24 -
operator and perhaps owed an even higher fiduciary or ‘quasi-
fiduciary duty’.” Mr. Glasser concluded that the net effect of
the two orders could only have greatly encouraged the royalty
owners and correspondingly discouraged Exxon about the
probability that Exxon would prevail on its claim against the
royalty owners. Additionally, Mr. Glasser believed that the
District Court would have found it inequitable for the royalty
owners to be accountable for any interest that accrued as a
result of Exxon’s perceived intractability before the DOE. Thus,
Mr. Glasser felt that the orders would have motivated Exxon to
settle the royalty owners’ cases on a highly discounted basis.
On the basis of Mr. Glasser’s personal experience representing
companies of Exxon’s stature in controversial matters such as DOE
litigation, he believed Exxon would be eager to end the matter
quickly and discreetly. Mr. Glasser also considered the fact
that Mr. Knowles, the attorney for the Allen parties, whom Mr.
Glasser described as a most able practitioner of oil and gas
litigation, had recommended rejection of Exxon’s offer to settle
the claims against the Allen parties.
In order to make a valuation determination, Mr. Glasser took
into consideration evidence of predeath events, and he assigned
mathematical probabilities to: (1) Whether the royalty owners
would be held liable to Exxon; (2) Exxon’s claim for recoupment
of the base amount paid to the DOE; and (3) Exxon’s claim for
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