Transportation/Storage Agreements (Pipelines, Etc.)

• We represented Kingfisher Midstream, LLC. Alta Mesa Holdings, Inc., an oil and gas company, entered into midstream gathering contracts with Kingfisher.  Alta Mesa drilled for oil and gas, and Kingfisher gathered and transported it.  The companies were under common ownership and had largely overlapping boards.  Alta Mesa later filed for chapter 11 bankruptcy protection.  On the same day it filed for bankruptcy, it sued its corporate sibling, Kingfisher, arguing that it should be permitted to reject their gathering contracts under the Bankruptcy Code, and that Alta Mesa’s directors breached their fiduciary duties by agreeing to enter into those contracts in the first place.  We argued at summary judgment that the gathering agreements conveyed Kingfisher interests in real property and thus could not be rejected under the Bankruptcy Code.  On the eve of trial, the court ruled in Kingfisher’s favor.  We then defended Kingfisher on the remaining claims and, after three trial days, Alta Mesa decided to discontinue the trial rather than pressing forward with its claims.
• We represent the SemGroup Litigation Trust stemming from the bankruptcy of SemGroup, a midstream oil and natural gas company engaged in storage and transport services from producers to refineries and asphalt manufacturers, in pursuing claims against various individuals, auditors and financial institutions involving fraudulent transfer, professional malpractice, breach of fiduciary duties, and other financial claims.
• We advised Mobil, one of the minority shareholders in the Alaskan Pipeline, in numerous suits, including the federal criminal investigation involving the wake of the Exxon Valdez oil spill.

Nuclear Energy

• We represented General Atomics Energy Services, Inc. in an AAA proceeding to recover costs attributable to respondent’s negligence in causing the unplanned shutdown of a uranium hexafluoride production plant, which was jointly owned by the parties. We prevailed on cross-claims for wrongful termination.
• We represented System Energy Resources, Inc. and Entergy Services, LLC (together, “SERI”) in an appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit from a FERC decision addressing two issues concerning the Grand Gulf Nuclear Station (which is majority owned by System Energy). The first issue concerned a sale-leaseback transaction into which SERI had entered many years ago, in which it sold a portion of the plant to third parties, who then leased that portion back to SERI for a term of years, with SERI to pay rent payments but also to enjoy the capacity and energy produced by that portion of the plant.  The second issue concerned SERI’s treatment in its rates of a previously-uncertain-but-since-resolved tax position that SERI had taken with the IRS concerning characterization of decommissioning costs as a cost of goods sold. SERI filed a petition for review in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.  After briefing was completed, he case settled and the appeal was withdrawn.
• We represented Entergy in seeking Vermont regulatory approval of a first-of-its-kind transaction in which an already-shutdown nuclear plant would be sold by a utility operator. The regulatory proceeding involved numerous rounds of written testimony, discovery, depositions, a settlement with certain parties (including the key Vermont agencies), and finally an evidentiary hearing before the Vermont Public Utility Commission.  The Commission issued its decision granting approval on December 6, 2018.
• We opposed an emergency petition seeking shutdown of the Indian Point 2 nuclear power plant, which is owned and operated by our client Entergy.  The petition was filed by Friends of the Earth and two other organizations and alleged that Indian Point 2 should be shut down pending further study of degraded bolts that had been detected in the reactor vessel and replaced.  The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit set an expedited briefing schedule over the course of a week, and then denied the petition.
• We represented Entergy Corporation before the Vermont Public Service Board, obtaining a Certificate of Public Good for the continued operation of the Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station through December 2014. The Public Service Board held that, on balance, continued operation of the VY Station through December 2014 would promote the general good of the state of Vermont.

Renewable Energies

• We achieved a very significant settlement for two solar power executives and entrepreneurs just days after closing arguments in an arbitration. The adversary had made a settlement offer of essentially nothing the week before – but, after learning the award was about to issue right after argument, the adversary hastened to settle the matter on very favorable terms.
• We represented many wind farms, including Innergex and EDF Renewables, with respect to the Texas winter storm. Many of these disputes involved the application of force majeure provisions, while others involved nodal pricing disputes and personal injury lawsuits relating to the freeze.
• One dispute that progressed quickly involved Stephens Ranch, a west Texas wind farm that supplies thousands of households in the Odessa/Lubbock metropolitan area. During construction, Stephens Ranch entered a long-term contract with its investment bank to sell power at a fixed rate.  During the February 2021 storms, Stephens Ranch could not generate power because of the unprecedented weather conditions.  Stephens Ranch’s investment bank served it with an invoice worth multiples of annual revenue for one week of non-delivered power.  We filed an action in New York Supreme Court for a declaration of force majeure and a declaration that the calculations supporting the invoice were improper under the contract as well as an injunction to forbid the investment bank from seizing the wind farm in satisfaction of the disputed invoices, until the validity of the invoices could be resolved.  When the lower court denied an injunction, we quickly appealed to the First Department, which less than a week later granted the injunction, thus allowing the case to proceed.
• We represented Northrop Grumman in a $132 million lawsuit alleging fraud, negligent misrepresentation, and breach of contract arising out of the manufacture of solar arrays for satellites.
• We obtained summary judgment for TRW in a $133 million negligence, negligent misrepresentation and fraud action brought by a European satellite manufacturer involving satellite manufacturing, solar arrays, solar energy, solar cells, solar array manufacturing, composite materials, rocket thrusters, optical glass, optical glass coatings, satellite telemetry data, and satellite communication.

Regulatory and Environment

• We represented System Energy Resources, Inc. and Entergy Service, LLC (together, “SERI”) in a rehearing at the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (“FERC”) and in an appeal of FERC’s order denying SERI of rent payment recovery during the renewal term of 21 years under the sale-leaseback agreement it entered in 1988. The appeal also concerned the implications of a so-called “uncertain tax position” SERI had taken on its ability to deduct future expenses of decommissioning the plant at the end of its life from the cost of goods (electricity) sold in the present.  The appeal was resolved by settlement.
• We represent FirstEnergy subsidiary American Transmission Systems, Inc. (“ATSI”) at FERC against a complaint filed by the Ohio Consumer Counsel (“OCC”) against various Ohio transmission owners including ATSI. This lawsuit stems from the increased construction and updating of local transmission projects to meet higher demand and aging infrastructures in Ohio.  OCC claims that there is a “regulatory gap” because existing state and federal transmission planning approval mechanisms are insufficient to oversee the construction of these projects.  It asks for a sea change resolution—that FERC develop a pre-construction approval regime for transmission projects.  Meanwhile, FERC is already addressing the issues raised in the complaint in pending rulemaking proceedings.
• We are lead counsel for FirstEnergy Service Company, LLC on behalf of American Transmission Systems, Inc. (“ATSI”) against a complaint brought by the Ohio Office of Consumers’ Counsel (“OCC”) at the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission challenging transmission rates as allegedly including a 50 basis point adder to their return on equity based upon their membership in a regional transmission organization.  OCC argued that no 50 basis point adder is justified under the federal statute or FERC regulation where a transmission owner is required by state law to belong to a regional transmission organization.  FERC agreed with OCC on that general issue but ruled that it warranted a reduction only of one transmission owner’s (AEP) rate, not the rate of ATSI or another transmission owner whose rates had been set through a black-box settlement that made it unclear whether the 50 basis point adder was part of the rate.  In a prior FERC case, FERC denied another transmission owner’s (Dayton Power) application for the 50 basis point adder.  On appeal, the Sixth Circuit affirmed FERC as to AEP and Dayton, and reversed FERC as to ATSI and Duke Energy by removing their adders even though FERC had declined to do so because that would disturb their settlements.  ATSI and AEP separately filed petitions for writs of certiorari in the Supreme Court, and the Court granted respondents’ requests for an extension of time to respond until September 22, 2025.   The cases are important because, among other things, they will determine whether state law can in effect deprive a transmission owner of the 50 basis point adder.
• We represent Entergy Arkansas in a lawsuit it filed against the Commissioners of the Arkansas Public Service Commission (“APSC”) in the Eastern District of Arkansas seeking a declaratory judgment and injunctive relief. The lawsuit stems from a decision of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (“FERC”) ordering Entergy to pay $135 million to its sister companies in other states based on a supposed misinterpretation of an interstate tariff.  Entergy then applied to the APSC for approval of a retail rate allowing it to recover a portion of this payment from retail customers, which the APSC denied.  Entergy filed this lawsuit challenging the APSC’s denial.  We defeated defendants’ motion to dismiss and successfully moved to compel discovery on our federal pre-emption and Dormant Commerce Clause claims.  We tried the case in February 2023 and are awaiting a decision.  In addition, we represented Entergy in an interlocutory appeal arising out of the same action, in which we defended the District Court’s ruling denying intervention to a would-be intervenor.  The appeal was decided in our favor in August 2023.
• We represent System Energy Resources, Inc. and Entergy Corporation in a complaint filed with FERC by the Louisiana Public Service Commission, the New Orleans City Council, and the Arkansas Public Service Commission alleging that the Grand Gulf nuclear plant in Port Gibson, Mississippi has been imprudently managed, and seeking damages of more than $1 billion. After significant motion practice, intensive discovery, and preparation of fact and expert witness statements, the matters settled on favorable terms.
• We represented Entergy Mississippi and affiliates in a suit brought by the Mississippi Attorney General alleging that these defendants intentionally purchased electricity from their own allegedly expensive power plants rather than from allegedly cheaper third-party sources, allegedly harming Entergy Mississippi’s customers by forcing them to pay higher electricity rates. We won summary judgment on the legal ground that this case was effectively a challenge to decisions made under standards set forth in the Entergy System Agreement, which is a federal tariff approved by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, and the violation of which is within the exclusive jurisdiction of that agency rather than any federal or state court.
• We obtained a complete appellate victory for Southern California Gas Co. (“SoCalGas”) in one of 2019’s most-watched business cases in the California Supreme Court.  In a unanimous decision, the court reaffirmed that California follows the economic loss rule, which holds that plaintiffs may not recover in negligence for purely economic losses caused by harm to third parties.  The decision required dismissal of actions against SoCalGas for indirect economic harms to local businesses allegedly suffered when local residents relocated temporarily after a gas leak.  The decision clarifies California tort law and eliminates the potential threat of billions of dollars in liability against California businesses for purely economic harm in mass disaster cases.
• We obtained a significant victory in the Ninth Circuit for Shell Offshore Inc. and Shell Gulf of Mexico Inc. in a decision denying petitions for review challenging the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management’s approval of Shell Offshore Inc.’s Revised Camden Bay Exploration Plan under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act and holding that the agency was entitled to significant deference when interpreting the Act, interpreting its own regulations, and making certain technical and scientific assessments. (This was our second win for Shell on such a petition; we obtained a similar win as to an earlier exploration plan in 2010.  The Court also issued an unpublished memorandum opinion denying petitions for review of the agency’s approval of Shell Gulf of Mexico Inc.’s Revised Chukchi Sea Exploration Plan.)
• We represented Shell Oil in an antitrust case brought by California gas station dealers alleging price discrimination in setting wholesale price zones (“zone abuse”). After a month-long trial, and following plaintiffs’ rebuttal case, Shell renewed various dispositive motions, including motions for Judgment as a Matter of Law, and to strike expert testimony. The court granted both motions, dismissing the case in its entirety.
• We represented a large energy trading company in numerous litigations arising from the California energy crisis. We obtained an injunction preventing the California Power Exchange from allocating losses to the client based on the defaults of other energy companies. We also obtained an emergency stay of an injunction from the Ninth Circuit allowing the client to exercise its contractual right to terminate the energy contract.
• We secured a complete dismissal with prejudice of a case described by the New York Times as “the most ambitious environmental lawsuit ever.”   The headline-making complaint sued our clients Koch Industries, Inc. and Koch Exploration Company, LLC and nearly a hundred other oil and gas companies, claiming that oil and gas activities destroyed Louisiana’s coastline.  The Board alleged that, as a result, it faced increasing storm surge risk and flood protection costs, and sought damages from the defendants to pay for the restoration of the coastline, an effort it claimed would cost approximately $50 billion.  The case was the subject of extensive national and local press coverage as it touched on national issues like the Keystone Pipeline debate and the federal government’s role in encouraging oil and gas exploration, and hot button local issues such as wetland loss and hurricane protection.

Other Energy Sector Disputes

• We represented TRC in a case against Chevron. TRC and Chevron are oil producers operating adjacent well fields in Kern County, California. TRC claimed that Chevron’s negligent steaming operations created dangerous conditions that forced TRC to suspend operations; Chevron counterclaimed against TRC. The case proceeded to trial before a California jury, which found for TRC and awarded TRC $73 million in damages and $47 million in prejudgment interest.  After trial, the trial court found the verdict supported by substantial evidence, but granted Chevron a new trial on the ground that one of the jurors had not disclosed a 40-year-old felony conviction that allegedly rendered him statutorily ineligible to serve as a juror. TRC appealed and Chevron cross-appealed.  In a unanimous, precedential opinion, the California Court of Appeal ruled for TRC and against Chevron, reversing the new trial order and directing the trial court to reinstate the judgment in favor of TRC. Chevron petitioned for review with the California Supreme Court. Thereafter, the parties entered into a confidential settlement agreement.
• We represent a consortium of plaintiffs, comprised of a bank, investment funds and shipping companies, including in the United States, Europe, Asia and Latin America, in a billion-dollar lawsuit against Citigroup for its involvement in the largest financial fraud in the history of Latin America. Oceanografía, formerly the largest oil services company in Mexico, conspired with Citigroup to commit a $750 million fraud involving false work estimates, which caused Oceanografía to collapse when the fraud came to light in 2014. On May 8, 2025, we won a significant appeal before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, which reversed the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida’s dismissal of our case on the merits. The case will now proceed to discovery in district court.
• We represented Talen Montana in litigation to recover hundreds of millions of dollars Talen Montana’s former parent, PPL Corp., transferred to itself, and leaving Talen Montana without assets sufficient to meet its large environmental and pension obligations. In December 2023, after more than five years of litigation, PPL paid $115 million to Talen Montana to settle the fraudulent transfer claims.
• We won an 8-1 victory for Shell Oil in the U.S. Supreme Court in Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railway v. United States, which greatly limited “arranger” liability under CERCLA and held that Shell could not be held liable as an arranger for shipping useful chemicals. The case also greatly clarified the standards for apportionment in CERCLA suits.
• We represented Occidental Petroleum and won a jury verdict establishing liability in an insurance coverage case regarding business interruption losses sustained from over two hundred terrorist bombings of an oil pipeline in Colombia. The case settled for nine figures before the damages phase of the trial.
• We represent Mammoth Energy Services and certain directors/officers in several actions arising from the indictment of the officer of a subsidiary, which is accused of providing items of value to a FEMA official in order to obtain restoration/repair work in Puerto Rico in the wake of Hurricane Maria. We settled a securities class action (after significant narrowing the case at the motion stage), derivative action, and one of the contractor actions on favorable terms; and limited the claims in another contractor action and sub-contractor actions at the pleading stage.  We intend to move to dismiss the newly filed claims in Florida State Court.
• We obtained an important appellate victory in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit for Amplify Energy Corporation, against three other energy companies—Aera Energy, Noble Energy, and SWEPI—that were challenging the chapter 11 reorganization plan of Amplify’s wholly-owned subsidiary, Beta Operating Company. The challengers, third-party beneficiaries of a $160 million trust that Beta established for the benefit of the federal government to secure certain plugging and abandonment obligations in connection with offshore oil and drilling platforms, argued that Beta’s chapter 11 plan impaired their rights in the trust because it would allow Beta to substitute the cash in the trust with bonds.  After successfully defending against the companies’ challenges in both the bankruptcy court and district court, Quinn Emanuel prevailed in the companies’ further appeal to the Fifth Circuit, which unanimously ruled in favor of Beta.
• We represented Benefit Street in the chapter 11 case for Berry Petroleum pursuant to which it became Berry's largest shareholder and appointed the chairman of the board. Thereafter, we were lead counsel for Berry Petroleum in successfully opposing its reserve-based lenders’ claims for default interest accruing during the pendency of its chapter 11 case.
• We represented Shell Oil in a case The New York Times called “the most important business decision” of the October 2012 Term, wherein we won a landmark 9-0 victory in the U.S. Supreme Court in Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum. The Court held that the Alien Tort Statute (ATS), enacted by the First Congress in 1789, does not provide a cause of action in U.S. courts for alleged violations of international human rights law that take place in foreign countries.  Applying the presumption against the extraterritorial application of U.S. law, the Court upheld the dismissal of a suit by Nigerian plaintiffs against Dutch and English companies for alleged conduct in Nigeria.  The decision greatly curtails the availability of the ATS as a vehicle to sue corporations in U.S. courts for supposedly aiding and abetting foreign governments’ human rights violations.
• We represented Allegheny Energy in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in a case arising from Allegheny’s purchase (from Merrill Lynch) of an energy trading business for $490 million in cash, stock in a newly formed energy trading company, and a $115 million repurchase option on the stock. The district court granted Merrill’s motion for summary judgment on its contract claim, dismissed Allegheny’s counterclaims after a bench trial, and awarded Merrill over $158 million in damages. Taking over the case on appeal, we persuaded the Second Circuit to overturn the district court’s key rulings in their entirety. The Second Circuit vacated the $158 million verdict for Merrill and reinstated Allegheny’s counterclaims, which were worth over $300 million.