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: 34260

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Oliver Perry on February 15, 2013 at 9:25am

Someone might have saved said attachments to their computer before Steven deleted them. If so please repost them. I read the documents, but didn't save.

Permalink Reply by ShaleAdvice (Steven C. Townsend) on February 15, 2013 at 9:40am

Sorry about the deletion.  I saw a Protective Order on the docket and want to determine what that encompasses before I disseminate information. 

Permalink Reply by Samuel J. Orr on February 15, 2013 at 12:08pm

Halcon among other things accused M&P of fraudulently altering the payment order. They said due diligence  included  not just good title but geology and unnamed other things. They also said the leases were integrated contracts. The other defenses were laches and waiver which I do not understand how they would apply.They stated that they had the right to reject any or all of the parcels. Hopefully Steven will be able to repost the links. Of course the protective order may prevent this. If so I am sure he will explain why. (Fang, Are you going to the big M&P EXPO?...I am trying to inject a little humor... maybe unsuccessfully.) 

Permalink Reply by Aaron R on February 15, 2013 at 5:13pm

Wow!  I think I have learned more in this thread of postings that I had over the prior six months!  Like Brett that posted earlier, we didn't get leased because of a well that was getting plugged and was never contacted by either Halcon or Hilcorp.  However, I'm kind of glad now we didn't!

After reading through here, I was thinking of how this case is a little similar this is to the lawsuit that was filed against Rex Energy in Butler County back in 2009.  Just to refresh everyone's memory, Rex tried to back out of some leases  and the landowners sued to have them enforced.  I believe the reason Rex backed out was because of the big downturn in activity after the financial crash.  That is a big difference from this case, which looks to me to be caused by a bad law firm.

Anyway, Rex settled the case out of court (coincidentally when things started to pick up again) and ended up paying the landowners $2500 up front and a 15% royalty.  As you can see, this turned out to be a bad deal for the landowners - they essentially sued to make Rex give them a bad lease and Rex obliged.  I hope the people here don't do the same thing.  My guess is that once some well results come in the terms may very well improve in Mercer County. 

I would not discourage anyone here from suing CX/MP for damages on loss of time, but I definitely would not try to get the "leases" made effective.  With Shell and Chevron ramping up activity and who knows who else may come in, it may pay to wait.  Since Halcon is somewhat of a startup, wouldn't you rather be with a Shell or Range and have an industry leader in your back yard?  Also, Halcon has stated that they want to flip the company like they did Petrohawk in three years - therefore, they just want to drill and get strong early production to "prove" the area.  I would rather be with someone who is looking for the highest long term production possible.

I know it hurts for now, but all these landowners can regroup and go into the next negotiations armed with a good attorney and a good landowners group and all this prior knowledge.  Hopefully I can join you now that our old well is plugged!  

(By the way, everyone here should be joining NARO to be part of the royalty owners association across the state and the country. there are great resources there).

 

Permalink Reply by Samuel J. Orr on February 15, 2013 at 5:21pm

I note that Terra's suit against M&P was filed on July 27, 2012. I have read the allegations in the complaint. The question is what is contained in M&P's answer to the complaint? It would be nice to have a link posted to their answer so that we can learn what legal excuses M&P has  if any for the actions of M&P as set forth in Terra's complaint! Rockjul, do you think it is possible to post this information to the thread. You have done a great service by starting the thread. I hope the thread does not die out. I think it is very important that any information about the progress of Terra's suit against M&P finds its way to the thread. I also hope that any information about the progress of the Mount Jackson 4 landowners' suit against Halcon also find its way to this thread. My requests extend not only to Rockjul but also to any others who post to this thread who may be able to provide relevant information. Thank you Rockjul for starting this very important thread!

Permalink Reply by ShaleAdvice (Steven C. Townsend) on February 15, 2013 at 5:26pm
Their answer hasn't been filed yet although it was due last week. I can post it when it hits the docket.
Permalink Reply by Samuel J. Orr on February 15, 2013 at 5:59pm

Were you able to determine whether you can re-post the complaint of landowners group against Halcon and Halcon's response? Your posts are of great service on this site. If you are prevented from doing so by a protective order, could you briefly explain why court would impose one in this particular case?

Permalink Reply by Samuel J. Orr on February 17, 2013 at 11:45am

T o Shale Advice: Steven, your posts are much appreciated. I believe in your last post you said you were going to check on whether the class action complaint by several of M&P's Mount Jackson 4 landowners against Halcon was covered by the protective order. If so, I had asked that you perhaps comment on the scope of the protective order and why a court would enter one in a case of this type. I think there were several posts by others  the tenor of which was similar to mine. Assuredly none of us want you to violate a judge's order. On the other hand the case is of interest to a number of people, and there are many of us who want to learn as much about this as possible. I think there may have been at least 30,000 acres in Mount Jackson 4 that did not get paid their bonus money of $3850/acre. That is a lot of money and if the landowners are ultimately paid it would be a big boost to the Mercer County economy. I am curious if the Pittsburgh Post Gazette or a local TV station might be interested in filing a suit to lift the protective order given the generally high priority given to the public's right to know about cases that potentially have such a large economic impact on such a large number of people beyond just the plaintiffs' and the defendant in this particular lawsuit?

Permalink Reply by ShaleAdvice (Steven C. Townsend) on February 17, 2013 at 12:23pm
Ill repost this evening. I don have access to my files at this time. The lawsuit does not preclude the filing of individual claims and we will talk to anybody who may wish to explore their legal options.
Permalink Reply by ShaleAdvice (Steven C. Townsend) on February 17, 2013 at 6:36pm

Here is the complaint and amended answer.  The case is going to mandatory ADR as soon as the parties can agree on a mediator. 

Attachments:
Permalink Reply by Oliver Perry on February 17, 2013 at 6:40pm

Thanks for reposting those Steven.

Permalink Reply by petej on February 17, 2013 at 7:28pm

All seems to boil down to paragraphs 19 & 21.

RSS

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

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service