Articles, Alerts & Perspectives

Pittsburgh, PA

The Legal Intelligencer

(by Michael Korns and Anna Hosack)

Last spring, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court addressed the question of who is entitled to standing in matters before a municipal zoning hearing board, and more importantly, who has standing to file an appeal from a board decision.  In South Bethlehem Assocs., LP v. Zoning Hearing Bd. of Bethlehem Twp., 294 A.3d 441 (Pa. 2023), the Pennsylvania Supreme Court held in a three-two decision that while the Municipalities Planning Code, 53 P.S. § 10101 et seq., (the “MPC”), allows the Board wide latitude to grant party status, a grant of standing by the Board does not automatically convey appellate rights absent a finding that the party is entitled to judicial review under the Local Agency Law, 2 Pa.C.S. § 105 et seq., only if they qualify under the “aggrieved party” standard, which requires that they had suffered a harm to an interest that the law is intended to protect.  However, this was a narrow decision, and the dissenters would allow any grant of party status by the Board to also grant appellate standing.  The result would be a dramatic relaxation of appellate standing requirements in zoning hearing board cases.

In South Bethlehem Assocs., the Applicant, a hotel owner, applied to the Zoning Hearing Board of Bethlehem Township (“ZHB”) and requested a dimensional variance.  At the public hearing before the ZHB, counsel for a business competitor of the Applicant appeared and claimed party status by signing in on the provided form as an objector.  The Applicant objected to the Objector’s participation because the Objector’s hotel was outside of the four-hundred-foot radius required for formal notice of the hearing.  …

Charleston, WV

The Wildcatter

(By Nikolas Tysiak)

Happy New Year! After a hiatus, we are back with new laws and cases for your information.

In Nicholson v. Severin POA Group, LLC, 895 S.E.2d 927 (W. Va. I.C.A. 2023), the West Virginia intermediate court of appeals was asked to interpret the meaning of an oil and gas reservation in a Doddridge County deed. The original deed involved a conveyance from F. W. Severin to L. D. Nicholson for 117.55 acres, excepting and reserving “one-sixteenth of all the oil and gas in and under said land.” In 2022, this language gave rise to a dispute as to whether Severin retained a 1/16 interest in oil and gas, or a ½ interest in oil and gas. After reviewing several older cases involving different iterations of oil and gas reservations, most of which involved either fractional splits between oil and gas rights (i.e., 1/16 oil and ½ gas) or referenced royalty as to the oil, gas, or both, the intermediate court determined the language of Severin’s reservation did not include the same factors creating ambiguity, that the Severin reservation was therefore not ambiguous, and concluded that Severin, and his successors in title, only retained an undivided 1/16 interest in oil and gas, based on the unambiguous language of the original deed.

In DD Oil Company v. State ex rel Ward, — S.E.2d —, 2023 WL 8588491 (W. Va. I.C.A.), DD Oil Company had permits to drill several wells in Ritchie County. The West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection (WVDEP) issued violations against DD Oil, which required DD Oil to cease all drilling operations and caused a protracted administrative and judicial review process. More than a year after the initial notice of violation, and after expiration of all the permits issued to DD Oil, WVDEP withdrew its notice of violation. …

Charleston, WV

GO-WV

(by Robert Stonestreet and Austin Rogers)

A federal appeals court has instructed a lower court to resolve a pending suit challenging the constitutionality of West Virginia’s oil and gas pooling and unitization law.  The federal district court previously declined to resolve certain constitutional issues presented in the suit on the grounds that those issues should be decided by a state court instead of a federal court.

In 2022, the West Virginia Legislature enacted Senate Bill 694 to revise West Virginia law governing the pooling and unitization of oil and gas formations associated with horizontal well development.  Pooling and unitization essentially involves combining separately owned properties into a single “unit” through which one or more horizontal wells are drilled.  The oil and gas produced from the horizontal well is then allocated among all the properties in the unit for purposes of calculating production royalties payable to the mineral owners.

Prior to Senate Bill 694 becoming effective on June 7, 2022, formation of a pooled unit for a horizontal well drilled through “shallow” oil and gas formations, which includes the Marcellus Shale, required consent of 100% of the mineral owners for all the properties to be included in the unit.  This 100% consent requirement did not apply to horizontal wells drilled through “deep formations” such as the Utica Shale.  One of the more significant changes made by SB 694 was to allow the West Virginia Oil and Gas Conservation Commission to approve units for shallow formations where at least 75% of the mineral owners consent, provided other requirements are also satisfied.  This means that up to 25% of a unit could potentially include properties for which the mineral owner did not consent to being part of a unit. …

Pittsburgh, PA and Harrisburg, PA

Legal Intelligencer

(by Carla Castello and Casey Alan Coyle)

Few concepts are more steeped in Pennsylvania law than the doctrine of forum non conveniens.  Memorialized in Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1006, the doctrine provides defendants a “necessary counterbalance to a plaintiff’s choice of forum to insure [sic] fairness and practicality.”  Bratic v. Rubendall, 99 A.3d 1, 6 (Pa. 2014) (cleaned up).  Historically, to establish forum non conveniens, a defendant had to show the plaintiff’s chosen forum is either oppressive or vexatious without any particular form of proof.  Through a series of recent decisions, however, the Pennsylvania Superior Court has sown uncertainty in the once-settled area of the law, subjecting some litigants to new, more rigid requirements and others to the traditional, flexible standard that has existed under Pennsylvania law for over a quarter century.  With each new decision, the intermediate appellate court reveals another piece of the puzzle.  But as a fragmented image takes shape, litigants and trial courts are looking to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court to solve the puzzle.

Background

Forum non conveniens was once a reliable tool for defendants to transfer a case to a more appropriate forum in the Commonwealth if litigating in the plaintiff’s chosen forum would be oppressive or vexatious.  In applying the doctrine, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has consistently emphasized the necessity of a fact-specific assessment, refusing to impose a specific standard of proof and instead focusing on the totality of the circumstances with considerable discretion granted to trial courts.  Bratic, 99 A.3d at 6-8; Cheeseman v. Lethal Exterminator, Inc., 701 A.2d 156 (Pa. …

Pittsburgh, PA

Legal Intelligencer

(by Steve Korbel, Anna Jewart and Anna Hosack)

Last week, thousands of newly elected public officials took office across Pennsylvania and began their duties.  Whether beginning a first or fifth term, those in public office must review their obligations regarding open meetings and public engagement.  Several statutes in Pennsylvania impose open meeting, public comment, and advertising requirements.  This “cheat sheet” will focus on the most common requirements for local governments, and specifically will address two key statutes: the Pennsylvania Sunshine Act, 65 Pa.C.S. § 701–716 (the “Sunshine Act”) and the Pennsylvania Municipalities Planning Code, 53 P.S. § 10101 et seq, (the “MPC”), which local government officials are likely to come across in their duties.

The Sunshine Act is the primary “open meetings” law for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.  Its intent is to promote the right of the public to be present at all meetings of public agencies and to witness the deliberation, policy formulation, and decision-making of those agencies.  In general, it requires that agencies, including local governing bodies and their committees, take official action at a public meeting.  The MPC is the statute that authorizes local zoning and other land use regulations.  It sets additional requirements for actions involving zoning, subdivision, and land development.

The Sunshine Act and MPC are not the only statutes that regulate how official action is taken.  Municipal enabling legislation such as the Borough Code, 8 Pa.C.S. §101 et seq., First Class Township Code, 53 P.S. §55101 et seq., and Second Class Township Code, 53 P.S. §65101 et seq., impose advertising and other requirements for the approval of ordinances, bidding processes, approval of budgets, and other matters.   …

Pittsburgh, PA

TEQ Magazine

(By Ember Holmes)

Earlier this year, Pennsylvania’s Breach of Personal Information Notification Act (BPINA), underwent its first major update since it was signed into law in June 2006.

The Amended BPINA1,  which went into effect on May 2, 2023, affects all Pennsylvania entities that store information belonging to Pennsylvania residents, but has the most significant impact on state agencies and entities that contract with state agencies.

BPINA was designed to set security parameters and standards for entities that maintain, store or manage computerized data containing the Personal Information (as defined below) of Pennsylvania residents. BPINA sets forth specific requirements for notifying residents of security system breaches. The Amended BPINA creates new definitions for previously undefined terms in BPINA, amends existing term definitions, and bolsters notification and security requirements for state agencies, state agency contractors, counties, public schools, and municipalities.

As a state agency, the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP) will be subject to this higher level of scrutiny with regard to its handling of personal information. In addition, any entity that contracts with the PADEP or maintains data on behalf of the PADEP or any other state agency is also subject to these more stringent requirements and should be familiar with the updates as applicable to their notification, reporting and encryption practices.

Expanded Definition of “Personal Information” and Related Notification Requirements

• The original BPINA definition of “Personal Information” included: (i) Social Security numbers; (ii) driver’s license numbers or state identification card numbers issued in lieu of driver’s licenses; and (iii) financial account numbers and credit or debit card numbers, in combination with any required access codes or passwords that would permit access to an individual’s account.

…

Pittsburgh, PA

PIOGA eWeekly

(By Gary Steinbauer and Christina Puhnaty)

On December 2, 2023, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) released a pre-publication version of its final Standards of Performance for New, Reconstructed, and Modified Sources and Emissions Guidelines for Existing Sources: Oil and Natural Gas Sector Climate Review (Final Rule). The Final Rule comes more than two years after EPA published its initial proposal on November 15, 2021 (Initial Proposal) and a supplemental proposal on December 6, 2022 (Supplemental Proposal) (collectively, the “Proposals”). According to EPA, the agency received over one million comments on the Proposals.  For information on the Proposals, please see our November 11, 2021 and December 12, 2022 articles. This Alert focuses on critical aspects of the Final Rule, including key changes that EPA made since issuing the Proposals.1

Brief Overview of Methane Rule

The Methane Rule is comprised of four separate actions proposed under sections 111(b) and 111(d) of the Clean Air Act. EPA currently regulates emissions of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and methane from oil and natural gas facilities under 40 C.F.R Part 60 Subparts OOOO2 and OOOOa.3 First, through this Final Rule, EPA will regulate oil and natural gas facilities constructed, modified, or reconstructed after December 6, 2022, under a new Subpart OOOOb.  The requirements in OOOOb will apply to affected facilities 60 days after the rule is published in the federal register.  Second, under a new Subpart OOOOc, EPA finalized emissions guidelines that are intended to inform states in the development, submittal, and implementation of state plans to establish standards of performance for greenhouse gases (in the form of limitations on methane) from sources existing on or before December 6, 2022.  …

Pittsburgh, PA and Washington, DC

PIOGA Press

(By Kevin Garber and Jessica Deyoe)

On November 21, 2023, the Shapiro administration appealed, to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, the Commonwealth Court’s November 1 ruling that the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) is an unconstitutional tax, and therefore is void and unenforceable. See Bowfin KeyCon Holdings, LLC et al v. Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection and Pennsylvania Environmental Quality Board (No. 247 M.D. 2022). The Commonwealth Court concluded that, to pass constitutional muster, Pennsylvania’s participation in RGGI “may only be achieved through legislation duly enacted by the Pennsylvania General Assembly” and not merely through the rulemaking promulgated by the Environmental Quality Board and the Department of Environmental Protection.

The Shapiro administration said it is appealing the decision because the “Commonwealth Court’s decision on RGGI—put in place by the prior administration—was limited to questions of executive authority, and our Administration must appeal in order to protect the important authority for this Administration and all future governors.”

The Governor’s decision to appeal the Commonwealth Court’s decision does not necessarily mean he supports RGGI, put in place by the previous Wolf administration. Even if the Shapiro administration wins on the appeal, it is unclear whether the Governor will enforce the regulation. In fact, the administration did not oppose the Bowfin KeyCon industry petitioners’ application to vacate the automatic stay that arises by law when the Commonwealth appeals a case. That means the RGGI regulation will continue to be ineffective and unenforceable while the appeal is pending.

The Shapiro administration is urging lawmakers to develop an alternative plan, stating in a press release that “should legislative leaders choose to engage in constructive dialogue, the Governor is confident we can agree on a stronger alternative to RGGI.” The Governor’s spokesperson Manual Bonder indicated that Governor Shapiro “stands ready and willing to implement the recommendations of the RGGI Working Group and he would sign legislation replacing RGGI with a Pennsylvania-based or PJM-wide cap-and-invest program, as they proposed.”

Shortly after taking office, Shapiro formed the RGGI Working Group consisting of a mix of labor, business, energy, and environmental leaders to determine whether RGGI would “protect and create energy jobs,” “take real action to address climate change,” and “ensure reliable, affordable power for consumers in the long-term.” The Working Group never endorsed RGGI. …

Pittsburgh, PA

Legal Intelligencer

(by Gary Steinbauer and Christina Puhnaty)

Pennsylvania oil and gas producers and midstream operators are faced with yet another suite of federal air regulations following the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s recent finalization of its far-reaching Methane Rule. On December 2, 2023, EPA released a 1690-page, pre-publication version of the Methane Rule or the Standards of Performance for New, Reconstructed, and Modified Sources and Emissions Guidelines for Existing Sources: Oil and Natural Gas Sector Climate Review. The Methane Rule is aimed at strengthening existing and adding new regulations limiting emissions of methane and volatile organic compounds (VOCs) from the Crude Oil and Natural Gas industrial source category. These federal Clean Air Act (CAA) regulations will apply to a host of new and existing emission sources and activities within the oil and natural gas industry. With Pennsylvania producing more natural gas than any other state except Texas, oil and gas producers and midstream operators must contend with another slate of new, more stringent federal air requirements.

The Methane Rule will become effective within 60 days of publication in the Federal Register. While EPA released it in a single package, the Methane Rule is comprised of four related regulatory actions: (1) updated new source performance standards regulating VOC and methane emission sources for certain emission sources and activities constructed, reconstructed, or modified after December 6, 2022, which will be promulgated at 40 CFR Part 60, Subpart OOOOb; (2) a set of emission guidelines for states to follow when adopting performance standards to limit methane emissions from specified existing air emission sources within the oil and gas industry, which will be promulgated at 40 CFR Part 60, Subpart OOOOc; …

Pittsburgh, PA

Pittsburgh Business Times

(By Daniel Bates featuring Nadya Kessler and Susanna Bagdasarova)

Peace on earth – perhaps wishful thinking during this holiday season in the midst of such extreme global turmoil. But not for the likes of the ever-optimistic GlobalPittsburgh and its local business supporters.

Together, they’re working hard these days to foster international peace and stability by bringing countries and cultures together right here in Pittsburgh, “one handshake at a time,” according to Nadya Kessler, director of GlobalPittsburgh, a nonprofit that has been serving the Pittsburgh community since 1959.

“For almost 65 years, GlobalPittsburgh has been developing and fostering educational, cultural, and business relationships between the Greater Pittsburgh community and international citizens,” said Kessler, a one-time attorney who emigrated from Russia in 2009 and has been leading the nonprofit for the past year. “GlobalPittsburgh is very important to the local business community because it creates long-lasting relationships between local and international community members, giving an opportunity for local businesses and academic institutions to meet international leaders whom they might have never had a chance to meet otherwise.”

Kessler shared the mission of GlobalPittsburgh, alongside Susanna Bagdasarova, an attorney with Pittsburgh-based law firm Babst Calland who serves on GlobalPittsburgh’s board of directors, during a recent interview with the Pittsburgh Business Times.

At ‘the same table’

The organization’s mission, Kessler said, couldn’t prove timelier today, as it “reaches across divides to bring people of diverse backgrounds and perspectives to the same table, forging opportunities for both the international and Pittsburgh communities to learn from and inspire each other.”

GlobalPittsburgh was founded in 1959 as the Pittsburgh Council for International Visitors. Early on, the United States Department of State designated the nonprofit as a regional liaison for the State Department’s International Visitor Leadership Program. …

Pittsburgh, PA

Pretrial Practice & Discovery

American Bar Association Litigation Section

(by Jess Barnes)

Contractual provisions providing for dispute resolution via arbitration are fairly common. In fact, federal policy generally favors arbitration. However, your case still may find its way to litigation over a few typical issues that arise regarding the enforceability of arbitration provisions. Recently, the Toronto Raptors and New York Knicks hit not only the court but the courtroom. These professional basketball teams seek a decision from a New York federal district court on whether their intellectual-property dispute belongs before a judge or the NBA commissioner as arbitrator. In New York Knicks, LLC v. Maple Leaf Sports & Entertainment Ltd. d/b/a Toronto Raptors et al., Case No. 23-CV-7394 (JGLC) (S.D.N.Y 2023), the Toronto Raptors moved the court to compel the action to arbitration. The Raptors argued that both teams are parties to the National Basketball Association (NBA)’s constitution and by-laws. The Raptors explained that the NBA Constitution is a contract among the members of the NBA. Moreover, the NBA Constitution provides an arbitration provision that the NBA commissioner has exclusive jurisdiction over disputes involving two or more members of the NBA.

When reviewing this request to compel arbitration, the court must answer two questions: (1) is there a valid agreement to arbitrate, and (2) if so, whether a court or arbitrator should decide if the underlying dispute is arbitrable.

Here, both parties at minimum conceded that a valid agreement to arbitrate existed between the parties in the NBA Constitution. The Knicks, however, argued that this case, contemplating intellectual-property theft, did not fall within the arbitration provision.

Initially, the Knicks claimed that the court, and not the NBA commissioner, should determine whether the case is arbitrable, because the NBA Constitution itself does not explicitly provide the procedure for resolving questions of arbitrability. …