Connection lost
Server error
In Re: El Paso Pipeline Partners, L.P. Derivative Litigation Case Brief
Why Top Law Students (And Those Aspiring to Be) Use LSD+ Briefs
Let's be real, law school is a marathon. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full case system is designed by Harvard Law School and MIT grads to match your pace: Quick summaries when you're slammed, detailed analysis when you need to go deep. Only LSD+ offers this kind of flexibility to genuinely fit your study flow.
Adaptive Case Views
Toggle between Flash, Standard, and Expanded. Get what you need, when you need it.
Exam-Ready IRAC Format
We deliver the precise structure professors look for in exam answers.
Complex Cases, Clarified
We break down dense legal reasoning into something digestible, helping you grasp core concepts.
Case Brief Summary & Legal Analysis
tl;dr: A unitholder sued a master limited partnership’s general partner over a conflicted transaction, alleging a breach of the partnership agreement’s procedural safeguards. The court held the claim was direct, not derivative, because it asserted a violation of the unitholders’ personal contractual rights.
Legal Significance: Establishes that a claim for breach of a partnership agreement’s procedural safeguards for conflicted transactions is a direct claim, as it alleges harm to the unitholders’ specific contractual rights, not merely an injury to the entity itself.
In Re: El Paso Pipeline Partners, L.P. Derivative Litigation Law School Study Guide
Use this case brief structure for your own legal analysis. Focus on the IRAC methodology to excel in law school exams and cold calls.
Case Facts & Court Holding
Key Facts & Case Background
El Paso Pipeline Partners, L.P. (“El Paso MLP”), a master limited partnership, acquired an asset from its controller, El Paso Parent, in a “drop-down” transaction. The Limited Partnership Agreement (LPA) eliminated all common law fiduciary duties and replaced them with a contractual framework. For conflicted transactions, Section 7.9(a) of the LPA provided several safe harbors, including “Special Approval” by a conflicts committee of disinterested directors. The General Partner utilized this Special Approval process for the transaction. A unitholder plaintiff filed a suit alleging that the Conflicts Committee acted in subjective bad faith, rendering the Special Approval invalid and placing the transaction in breach of the LPA. The plaintiff sought to certify a class, framing the claim as a direct injury to the unitholders. The defendants opposed certification, arguing the claim was exclusively derivative because the core allegation was that the partnership overpaid for the asset, an injury to the entity.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Is a unitholder’s claim that a general partner breached the limited partnership agreement by failing to properly obtain ‘Special Approval’ for a conflicted transaction a direct claim or a derivative claim?
The claim is direct. The court reasoned that the alleged harm was Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla
IRAC Legal Analysis
Complete IRAC Analysis for Higher Grades
IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the exact format professors want to see in your exam answers. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full briefs combine holding, analysis, and rule statements formatted to match what A+ students produce in exams. These structured briefs help reinforce the essential legal reasoning patterns expected in law school.
Legal Issue
Is a unitholder’s claim that a general partner breached the limited partnership agreement by failing to properly obtain ‘Special Approval’ for a conflicted transaction a direct claim or a derivative claim?
Conclusion
This case solidifies the principle that unitholders in alternative entities can sue Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ull
Legal Rule
Under the test from *Tooley v. Donaldson, Lufkin & Jenrette, Inc.*, a Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nul
Legal Analysis
The court applied the two-prong test from *Tooley*. Under the first prong—who Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- A claim that a general partner breached a limited partnership agreement