M&P BEING SUED / CLASS-ACTION SUIT AGAINST HALCON, M&P & CX

 

Hello everyone:

                         I have not posted anything on here before. I have always just read the comments of others. I thought I would just post some thoughts. After being patient for 8 1/2 months I still have no answers like others in the south east Mercer County area. Is Halcon going to be held responsible for their actions? Are they going to be made to pay for the contracts they signed for? How qualified is M&P when it comes to representing the landowners of group 4 against a company like Halcon with deep pockets. Will we get an honest effort from M&P or will they make it as short as possible and except less than what we deserve to mitigate damages on their behalf. I have just read, in detail, the civil suit against M&P by Terra Energy LLC. Now it seems to me that the landowners not only have to worry about being pushed around by an unethical oil & gas Co, but now we have to worry about the real motives of the law firm we have to represent us. Are they going to treat clients like they treated business partners? I think if given a chance M&P will come back to the land owners after any legal actions against Halcon with a bogus report how they couldn't do much and if we continue it will tie up our lands for years, of course due to a half hearted attempt at getting us what we legally are owed.

                        I only have this attitude after listening to M&P for 8 1/2 months tell us how important it is to stick together as a group but they will break up the group at the drop of a hat to sign a little chunk to this O&G Co and another chunk to a different O&G Co. This sticking together only benefitted them by having all of us available to them for whatever size of lease they could get from any other O&G Co. After seeing an E-Mail to Terra Energy Advisors LLC from Jack Polochak describing how maybe Terra Energy should  get some leases signed by an O&G Co that are less than desirable for landowners to make it look like A Co he was partnering up with was successful in the oil and gas leasing business. That just shows me that he will sacrifice his clients profits to improve his and his associates. I think everyone should read the Lawsuit especially the landowners of group 4. Maybe I am seeing this in a sinister way and I am just swayed by how the rest of the world does things these days. Here is the link to the Lawsuit. I would like to know how many other landowners see it the way I do.

MPLawsuit.pdf

Views: 34271

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by James Brink, Esq. on February 11, 2013 at 1:37pm
No argument there from me! I have seen it all in 30 years of practicing law.
Permalink Reply by Kevin Senich on February 11, 2013 at 11:22am

I wouldn't argue with your facts, or your conclusions.  But, I would contrast the number of law schools and admissions with the number of medical schools and admissions.  With highly restricted admissions to medical schools, we not only have to import doctors to serve our needs, but we have by far the highest cost per capita for health care of any country in the world while ranking 19th behind Slovakia in terms of the quality of that health care as measured by the two most generally accepted measures of health care quality  --  longevity and infant mortality.  Conversely we enjoy the greatest degree of personal freedom of any country in the world -- and lawyers have contributed in great measure in making sure we continue to enjoy the  freedoms guaranteed by our Constitution whether that contribution be made arguing in the Supreme Court or drafting a fair contract on behalf of a landowner.

But you're absolutely right.  A glut of lawyers in the job market does put serious pressure on ethical practice. 

 

Permalink Reply by Daniel Rupert on February 11, 2013 at 11:42am

@ Kevin...excellent post!

Permalink Reply by Rockjul on February 11, 2013 at 11:25am

 

Sorry I have not replied to anything till now. Work has consumed the rest of my time.

We as a group were told more than once by CX and M&P that this was not a lease option it was a guaranteed lease. CX and M&P told us that a contract was signed with Halcon and they accepted the terms as was told to us at the meetings. At first they did not have the contract signed with halcon but at the time of the Official Lease signing it had been approved by Halcon and signed by them. They reiterated it was a guaranteed lease not a lease option. They also said they would not charge us for any representation if we were not to get an exceptable lease and we chose to file against Halcon. I did ask to see the contract signed by Halcon and the responce from CX & M&P was I could come to the offices of CX to see it and I could bring another attorney to look at it with me but we would have to sign in as seeing the document and were not permitted to take a copy of the document because it was a proprietary document and was developed by Halcon and they did not want other oil and gas Co's to see how they wrote up contracts. I still have not personally seen the document. M&P could be trying to cover that the agreement was not a gauranteed lease. At this point I don't know what to think. I do have my lease and I do not see anything that says "OPTION" on it. 

Permalink Reply by Samuel J. Orr on February 11, 2013 at 12:29pm

I would think that you might wish to take up the offer of Mr. Brink or the offer of Shale Advice per their earlier posts to this site. I am not sure at all whether M&P's "proprietary document" excuse is valid or not. I think it is perhaps possible for you to get a copy of the document but I will defer to Shale Advice or to Mr. Brink. The problem you may have is that you may be stuck with the actual language in the documents you signed even if it did not say "lease option". I have however made the point repeatedly that if it was merely a "lease option" that M&P knew this or should have known it, and I believe should have disclosed this to all landowners up front. Just my thoughts on the subject but I think my advice to you to talk or correspond privately with Mr. Brink or with Shale Advice would be a smart move on your part. 

Permalink Reply by Rockjul on February 11, 2013 at 12:54pm

@ samuel .....   I think you may be right. Just to clarify an earlier statement.This document was written by CX and M&P and submitted to Halcon for approval as a letter of intent according to CX and M&P then Halcon if I am not mistaken wrote up the final document that covered all of the specifics that CX and M&P requested. from what I understand that was the document signed by Halcon and I was told it was propriatary to Halcon. I will have to talk to one of the gentlemen that offered to look at one of the leases. If one of them want to contact me I will discuss this with them. Have not used this site much to know how to do a friend request.

                I also don't want anyone to think that I am bashing all Attorneys. I am not I am just frustrated with how things played out with M&P. I think that for the most part the people on this site are probably just like I am and just want treated with respect and to be treated fairly. I appreciate everyones input Thanks

Permalink Reply by Daniel Rupert on February 11, 2013 at 1:03pm

Amen Rockjul...

Permalink Reply by James Brink, Esq. on February 11, 2013 at 1:40pm
You have to review the Order of Payment. This document sets forth the "contingencies" under which they will either pay or not pay.
Permalink Reply by Daniel Rupert on February 11, 2013 at 1:52pm

@ Mr. Brink...Please call me @ (312) 659-4481 tomorrow if possible...or e-mail me at danielrupert@rocketmail.com  tonight or tomorrow. I thank you in advance.

Permalink Reply by Rockjul on February 11, 2013 at 2:11pm

@ Mr Brink Here is what the Order For Payment Says

Attachments:
Permalink Reply by ralph monico on February 11, 2013 at 2:38pm

Rockjul,

Payment is subject to the contigencies identified in the Order for Payment.  The clause "any other due diligence deemed necessary at the sole discretion of the lessee" essentially provides the company with exclusive (perhaps absolute) right to decide whether it wants to exercise the option to lease the property. 

Permalink Reply by Rockjul on February 11, 2013 at 2:49pm

If what you are saying is true then M&P and CX misrepresented the whole group in saying this is not a lease option and proclaimed several times "if you sign the lease you are gauranteed the money" "this is not a lease option" "Halcon is accepting all acreage in mercer county that we sign" among other statements made to the group in a number of meetings. M&P should have disclosed to us that this verbage in the "Order Of Payment" allowed Halcon to back out of the lease at the sole discretion of them(Halcon) and that in fact what they proclaimed as being a Gauranteed lease was nothing but a tactic to get unknowing landowners to sign with them. 

RSS

© 2024   Created by Keith Mauck (Site Publisher).   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service