Nearburg v. Yates Petroleum Corp.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that “courts cannot imply covenants which are inconsistent with express provisions”
• explaining op- eration of the Model Form Agreement's non-consent The relevant portion of the Model Form Agreement penalty provision
• “[T]he non-consent penalty is the agreed-upon reward to [a consenting party] for taking the risk.... As a contractual arrangement, the carried interest is subject to negotiation and modification, and the parties’ rights and obligations depend upon their contract.”
• “We find this position to be a strained interpretation of the operating agreement.”
• explaining operation of the Model Form Agreement's non-consent penalty provision
• “[T]he non-consent penalty is the agreed-upon reward to [a consenting party] for taking the risk . . . . As a contractual arrangement, the carried interest is subject to negotiation and modification, and the parties’ rights and obligations depend upon their contract.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).