Articles
5 Strategies for Venue Selection in Energy Disputes
1. Understand the Stakes In energy contracts, venue selection clauses — language specifying how and where disputes will be heard …
May 18, 2026
May 18, 2026 • 2-minute read
Partner
Commercial & Business Litigation
Chambers USA, 2026
Stephanie maintains a national trial practice, regularly trying cases to juries and courts across the country. Her clients span numerous industries, and Stephanie has developed specialized experience in the energy, power, and construction sectors. In just the last five years, Stephanie’s trial work has resulted in a take-nothing jury verdict for her client defending $100+ million claims in a joint-operating-agreement dispute, a $280 million judgment for her client in a dispute over construction of a water treatment facility, a $96 million jury verdict in a breach of contact action regarding natural gas supply, and multiple arbitration awards for the full amount of damages requested. Stephanie also regularly advises companies with respect to disputes in the upstream and midstream energy sectors, including claims regarding royalty payment practices, supply contracts and natural gas pricing issues, and transportation rights. Stephanie is actively involved in the Firm’s pro bono practice, through which she has represented individuals in asylum and family-law proceedings and advised local non-profits on various litigation and regulatory matters.
(CA Dist. – Kern Cnty) – Following a more than 2 month trial, obtained a take-nothing jury verdict for oil and gas operator against $100 million failure-to-develop and fraud claims brought by non-operating working interest owners under a joint operating agreement
(Colo. Dist. – Denver Cnty.) After a three-week trial to the court, secured a $280 million judgment in favor of Antero Treatment while defeating a $118 million counterclaim; the Court found that the defendant fraudulently induced Antero into signing an agreement for the design, construction and operation of a facility for the treatment of produced and flowback water; the Court also found that Antero properly terminated the agreement after the defendant defaulted by failing to construct the facility according to the requirements of the contract
(Colo. Dist. – Denver Cnty.) — Assisted in obtaining a nearly $96 million (net) jury verdict on behalf of oil-and-gas producer against two purchasers of natural gas for breaching long-term contracts to purchase gas; the jury also rejected the purchasers’ force majeure defense and breach of contract claims against our client for approximately $35 million
(AAA Arbitration) – Defending oilfield services company against shareholder claims in connection with an initial public offering
(TX Business Court) – Defending upstream oil and gas company against claims regarding a gas gathering agreement
(S.D. Ohio) – Defended producer in a lawsuit involving breach of contract claims related to a purchase and sale agreement; successfully reduced the scope of the claims through a motion on the pleadings, limiting maximum damages available by over $100 million; resulted in favorable settlement in advance of trial
Represented upstream oil-and-gas company in an appeal of multi-million dollar civil penalty concerning federal royalty payments before an administrative law judge; achieved complete dismissal of civil penalty
(Tex. Dist. – Ward County) – Defended energy company in lawsuit against former working interest holder in Texas state court; obtained favorable motion for summary judgment resulting in a dismissal of majority of claims
(AAA Arbitration) — Represented international construction contractor against a turbine supplier for fraudulent misrepresentation and breach of contract related to equipment and services for a major power plant project; obtained award for all damages sought
(AAA Arbitration) – Defended Colorado energy company in an AAA arbitration against a co-working interest holder regarding an Area of Mutual Interest Agreement; presented fact witness and crossed expert witness at final hearing; obtained favorable result
Represented energy company in international arbitration proceedings under the ICSID Convention against Argentina related to the treatment of an investment; resulted in award of approximately $200 million (net)
First-chaired fifteen jury trials through the City of Houston’s Volunteer Prosecutor Program
(Bankr. S.D. Tex) – Represented oil-and-gas producer in challenging class proofs of claim for alleged royalty underpayment
(D. Puerto Rico) – Represented fuel-testing laboratory in class action brought against a number of laboratories, fuel suppliers, and a utility company, in Puerto Rico alleging RICO and fraud claims related to the sale and testing of oil
(Texas) – Defended pharmacy and grocery services company against putative class action by consumers alleging over-charges for prescription drugs
(Hawaii) – Defended chemical company in class action brought by workers alleging work-place injuries in Hawaii state court
(Texas) – Represented not-for-profit electric cooperative in litigation involving mineral lease for coal mining in South Texas
(Ad Hoc Arbitration) Defended local not-for-profit company in a Winter Storm Uri natural gas pricing dispute
(Texas) – Defended operator against claims by non-operators for alleged breaches of joint operating agreement
(Texas) – Defending upstream oil-and-gas company against royalty underpayment claims
(OH, WV and PA) – Defending upstream oil-and-gas company against royalty underpayment claims
(Oklahoma) — Defended producer in multiple royalty underpayment suits brought by same plaintiffs’ law firm on behalf of hundreds of royalty owners in Oklahoma state court
Counseled energy companies regarding regulatory compliance with federal leasing and royalty payment requirements and litigated administrative appeals of notices of noncompliance and civil penalties before administrative law judges
(AAA Arbitration) – Defended private equity company against claims by shareholder. Resulted in award rejecting all monetary damages sought
(Tex. Dist. – Harris County) – Prosecuted breach of contract claims on behalf of international natural gas supplier; resulted in judgment for approximately $523 million in liquidated damages
(Tex. Dist. – Harris County) – Defended a private equity company in a dispute involving a former investor in a portfolio company
(Tex. Dist. – Harris County) – Defended related New York companies against tortious interference claims on personal jurisdiction grounds
Education
Admissions
Articles
5 Strategies for Venue Selection in Energy Disputes
1. Understand the Stakes In energy contracts, venue selection clauses — language specifying how and where disputes will be heard …
May 18, 2026
May 18, 2026 • 2-minute read
CLE Events
Venue Selection for Energy Disputes
On Tuesday, March 17, Jim Thompson, Nick Shum, Stephanie Noble, and Matt Hoffman will lead a CLE program focused on venue selection considerations in energy sector contracts.
March 17, 2026
March 17, 2026 • 1-minute read
Client Alerts
Brine Time: Texas’ Latest in Lithium Law
Lithium continues to be a rising star of the natural resources world, and Texas is working to stay on top of the legal issues related to the extraction of lithium from produced water and brine.
April 1, 2025
April 1, 2025 • 5-minute read
Client Alerts
Balancing Act: Lithium Extraction and a New Era of Legal Issues
As the world moves toward cleaner energy, lithium has become crucial, powering electric vehicles and renewable-energy storage systems. With lithium demand set to increase more than 40-fold by 2040, the race to extract this critical mineral has intensified, especially in the United States.
November 26, 2024 • This article was originally published by Mining Magazine on Nov. 26, 2024
November 26, 2024 • 4-minute read
Client Alerts
Take Nothing: Delivering a Courtroom Masterclass
Two months in court, 1,700 miles from home, $100 million at stake. In this edition of V&E+, Vinson & Elkins partners Jim Thompson, Nick Shum, and Stephanie Noble share their story of a marathon trial — and how they emerged victorious.
February 21, 2024 • V&E+ Ventures
February 21, 2024 • 6-minute read
Awards & Rankings
The Legal 500 US 2026 recommended Vinson & Elkins as a leading law firm in 47 practice categories. In total, …
June 10, 2026
June 10, 2026 • 3-minute read
Awards & Rankings
Vinson & Elkins announced today that it achieved 20 Band 1 rankings in Chambers USA 2026: Nationwide: Energy Transition; Energy: …
June 4, 2026
June 4, 2026 • 3-minute read
Deals & Cases
Vinson & Elkins advised Lane42 Investment Partners, LLC and Karis Midstream Partners in the acquisition of Aqua Terra Permian, LLC …
January 6, 2026
January 6, 2026 • 1-minute read
Awards & Rankings
Lawdragon Names 34 Vinson & Elkins Lawyers to Its 2026 500 Leading Litigators in America Guide
Lawdragon has recognized 34 Vinson & Elkins attorneys in its 2026 500 Leading Litigators in America guide.
September 12, 2025
September 12, 2025 • 1-minute read
Awards & Rankings
The Legal 500 US 2025 recommended Vinson & Elkins as a leading law firm in 43 practice categories. In total, 133 attorneys are recognized, many in more than one category. Vinson & Elkins attorneys earned multiple special designations, such as “Leading Trial Lawyer,’ “Hall of Fame,” “Leading Partner,” “Next Generation Partner,” and “Leading Associate.”
June 11, 2025
June 11, 2025 • 3-minute read
our People
Please note that any communication with Vinson & Elkins via e-mail through this website does not constitute or create an attorney-client relationship with V&E. Please do not send any confidential information. A conflicts-of-interest procedure must be completed by V&E prior to establishment of an attorney-client relationship. When you execute an engagement letter from V&E you will be our client, and you may then exchange information freely with a V&E attorney.
By clicking “Accept,” you agree that we may review any information you transmit to us. You recognize that our review of your information, even if it is highly confidential and even if it is transmitted in a good faith effort to retain us, does not preclude us from representing another client directly adverse to you, even in a matter where that information could and will be used against you.