Cheniere Energy, Inc. and Cheniere LNG Terminals, LLC v. Parallax Enterprises LLC, Parallax Energy LLC, Parallax Enterprises (NOLA) LLC, Live Oak LNG LLC, Live Oak LNG Pipeline LLC, Moss Lake LNG LLC, Louisiana LNG Energy, LLC, and Calcasieu LNG LLC

Motion for Reconsideration En Banc Granted; Opinion and Judgment of
December 27, 2018, Withdrawn; Affirmed; and Opinion on Reconsideration
En Banc, Concurring Opinion on Reconsideration En Banc, and Dissenting
Opinion on Reconsideration En Banc filed August 13, 2019.
In The
Fourteenth Court of Appeals
NO. 14-17-00982-CV
CHENIERE ENERGY, INC. AND CHENIERE LNG TERMINALS, LLC,
Appellants
V.
PARALLAX ENTERPRISES LLC, PARALLAX ENERGY LLC,
PARALLAX ENTERPRISES (NOLA) LLC, LIVE OAK LNG LLC, LIVE
OAK LNG PIPELINE LLC, MOSS LAKE LNG LLC, LOUISIANA LNG
ENERGY, LLC, AND CALCASIEU LNG LLC, Appellees
On Appeal from the 61st District Court
Harris County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. 2017-49685
CONCURRING OPINION
ON RECONSIDERATION EN BANC
This case is troublesome, first because it is hard to imagine the probability of
Appellees’ success where the documents clearly state their nature as loan
documents. Secondly, I am not comfortable with reliance upon such a narrow
interpretation of “intangibles.” I concur with the outcome more based on the
nature of the interest held by Live Oak. While ownership in Live Oak is generally
an intangible, the parties agree its value will be determined solely by the outcome
of this litigation. To make a change in ownership at this time would, in the
reasoned opinion of the trial judge, create uncertainty as to irreparable harm. Since
the value of the asset is solely a claim against Appellants, the financial risk and
benefit to Appellants already belong to Appellants. Accordingly, I see no harm in
maintaining the status quo pending further development of the case. Further, I note
that “the most expeditious way of obviating the hardship and discomfiture of an
unfavorable [temporary injunction] order is to try the case on its merits and thus
secure a hearing wherein the case may be fully developed and the courts, both trial
and appellate, may render judgments finally disposing of controversies.” Sw.
Weather Research, Inc. v. Jones, 160 Tex. 104, 111, 327 S.W.2d 417, 422 (1959).
/s/ Jerry Zimmerer
Justice
En banc court consists of Chief Justice Frost and Justices Christopher, Wise,
Jewell, Bourliot, Zimmerer, Hassan, and Poissant. (Spain, J., not participating).
Justice Christopher authored the Opinion on Reconsideration En Banc, in which
Justices Wise, Bourliot, Zimmerer, Hassan, and Poissant joined. Justice Zimmerer
authored the Concurring Opinion on Reconsideration En Banc. Chief Justice Frost
authored the Dissenting Opinion on Reconsideration En Banc, in which Justice
Jewell joined.
2