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 Kevin Senich on February 21, 2013 at 2:27pm

Sorry for all the questions, but ...

Can anyone shed light on the nature of the relationship between M&P and the MJLG4?  Did M&P have an attorney-client relationship with the landowners group, or were they exclusively the attorneys for CX?  How was their relationship explained to the landowners?   Was there ever any letter of engagement or document from M&P to the landowners individually or as a group to the effect that M&P would be their legal representatives?  Was the landowners group ever advised to get counsel of their own?

It has been troubling me since Ralph Monico stated earlier that he had never seen "a confidentiality agreement that prohibits a lawyer from sharing documents or information with his client."  Neither have I.  I never will.  That scenario is unthinkable in the context of an attorney/client relationship. 

But, is M&P claiming they are not the attorneys for MJLG4 or those individual members?  Is M&P claiming that the LOI is by and between Halcon and their client, CX?  Is that the reason why it is "confidential" and not shared with the landowners?

Who among the landowners knows/remembers how the relationship of M&P to the group was explained?

 

Permalink Reply by Rockjul on February 21, 2013 at 2:48pm

  

I specifically ask Jeremy, one of the M&P attorneys, if M&P was representing MJLG4 he said yes. As I recall at the first meeting I was invited to it was explained who CX was and how M&P was a part of this lease signing to represent us and CX and they were a legal firm with experience in the oil and gas industry and that both of them had successfully completed MJLG1, 2, 3 with 1&2 already getting lease bonuses and MJLG3 I believe in Lawrence county about to be paid at any time. This was back in June of 2012. This presentation was put on by CX and M&P as a joint presentation.

Permalink Reply by ShaleAdvice (Steven C. Townsend) on February 21, 2013 at 3:02pm
I don't recall reading any disparaging comments about anyone, but something has ruffled someone's feathers. A lot of questions have been asked and several theories have been discussed regarding oil and gas leases, ehtics, fiduciary duties, etc, so I'm not nsure where this came from. I do not respond well to these types of emails so maybe we should change the topic of this thread to the First Amendment.


From:
Subject: GoMarcellus
Date: February 21, 2013 8:19:21 PM EST
To: "LLC ShaleAdvice"
Cc: "Stephen Plonski"

Mr. Brink,

I have read your comments on GoMarcellusshale.com. You and Mr. Townsend will be contacted by my lawyer Steve Plonski at Margolis Edelstien in the near future. I have copied him on this communication.

Thank you for your attention,

Joseph E. Morascyzk, Esquire
Morascyzk and Polochak
Attorneys at Law
1373 Washington Pike, Suite 200
Bridgeville, PA 15017

(412) 564-5695
Washington Office: (724) 225-1110
Toll Free: 1-855-PA-SHALE
Fax: (412) 564-5447
Permalink Reply by Samuel J. Orr on February 21, 2013 at 4:34pm

Mr. Moraczyk: Your law firm was at least partially responsible for this mess. That is true even if a court ultimately finds that Halcon must pay all members of the Mount Jackson 4 group. If indeed Halcon's obligation to pay a particular landowner was conditioned ONLY on the landowner's having good title, the drafting of a lease so stating could have been accomplished by a first year law student. Your firm made between $4,000,000 and $5,000,000 based on your 6% of the bonus money paid on the acreage in Mount Jackson 4 that Halcon accepted. Your firm agreed to use its best efforts to find alternative leases for the rejected acreage and to only charge the landowners 5% instead of your customary 6%. Many think you should be representing these people free of charge. Your firm promised to keep in touch with these landowners and advise them of your progress. Many have complained that their calls have been diverted and not returned. Suffice it to say we have seen no reports on this site extolling your success in finding alternative leases.Many landowners believed that Halcon had to accept all of the properties or none of the properties. In the end, Halcon cherry-picked the acreage it wanted and you cheerfully collected your $4,000,000 to $5,000,000. You have now taken the M&P / CX roadshow to Venango County. Someone posted that your Venango County meetings are limited to persons who own lands in Venango County. I suppose that if this is true it may be because you do not wish disgruntled clients from Mercer County to share their experiences with M&P. If indeed your clients were told that your marketing strategy involved strength in numbers and that Halcon had to accept all the properties, how was Halcon able to pick and choose? This seems to me to be a reasonable question that you might be able answer. Perhaps they were not told this by M&P but this is what many heard. Some response from you would be appreciated!

Permalink Reply by ShaleAdvice (Steven C. Townsend) on February 21, 2013 at 4:41pm
Sam,

What was the landowner promised in exchange for paying 8% of the bonus? What services were being provided if the marketing agent wasn't providing legal services to the landowners. I'm just curious.
Permalink Reply by Jim Litwinowicz on February 22, 2013 at 6:18am

Sam; the meetings are open to everyone.  I was at the Venango meeting on Tues and no one was turned away. We ask people to sign in with contact info, location and acreage so that we can follow up with them. But no one is turned away.  I even saw several people walk in without signing in and no one said a word to them.

During the presentation a Cx employee went over the history of all groups they have organized and brought to market.  He included a discussion about the Mercer group and the issues with Halcon. They have been doing this at all meetings since the debacle happened. They are very open about both their successes and the one  group that has issues yet to be resolved.

Don't believe everything you read on the net.  Many people have different agendas and are not always truthful or accurate. The person that posted that may have been confused about our next meeting in Venango in April.  That meeting will have a members-only meeting at 6 PM to discuss on-going leasing negotiations that have resulted from NAPE in Houston.  Both Cx and M & P had booths there and generated a lot of interest in several of our groups including both Venango and Mercer Cos. Since this will be updating the members it is appropriate that it be closed to members.  It will be followed by an open meeting the same night which all of you are welcome to attend.

Permalink Reply by Kevin Senich on February 21, 2013 at 3:06pm

Rockjul:

Thanks.  Based on what Jeremy said, there definitely was an attorney/client relationship between M&P and MJLG4.  If that is the case, as Ralph Monico earlier stated, it is unthinkable that an attorney could enter into a confidentiality agreement that prohibited him from sharing information with his client about his client's interests. 

Does Rockjul's conversation comport with what other landowners were told? Mr. Litwinowicz, is this your understanding, as well?

 

Permalink Reply by Samuel J. Orr on February 21, 2013 at 3:21pm

I think we are wasting our time attacking Jim Litwinowicz. He is not a lawyer. He clearly believed and represented at various meetings that the landowners would be paid if they had good title. There were M&P lawyers at these meetings who heard him and other CX Energy reps make this assertion. M&P unequivocally represented and continues to represent that Halcon must legally pay all members of Mount Jackson 4. Perhaps a court will ultimately determine that this is so. Perhaps not. I believe Jim believed that was the case and because of his faith in the abilities of M&P he may still believe it. At least one law firm must believe it!? Otherwise why would they  file a suit on behalf of the landowners against Halconl Competent lawyers do not usually file lawsuits unless they believe they have some reasonable chance of success. At least I don't think they do?! So Jim made assertions in the presence of M&P, in reliance on M&P, and with the approval of M&P. Jim does not need to be, or deserve to be pilloried on this thread!

Permalink Reply by James Brink, Esq. on February 21, 2013 at 3:31pm

Sam, I agree with you.  The intent of the postings is not to pillory (if that is a word) anybody, including Jim.  I believe that many of the folks following this thread viewed Jim's appearance as a possible way to get some information.  That's all.  Nothing more.  I view this thread as a means to share information and I believe many folks felt that Jim was the bearer.  The tone I am getting is that of some frustration from people who felt that they were wronged.  The money was a Godsend to a lot of these folks and now it is gone.  Naturally, they want answers.  That's all. 

Permalink Reply by Samuel J. Orr on February 21, 2013 at 4:42pm

We do not disagree. Jim is not an employee or agent ot M&P although he has a relationship with CX Energy.It is late and perhaps my mind is a little fuzzy. It just seems to me that some of the questions directed to Jim should be directed to M&P. I may be wrong and Jim can answer for himself but my impression has always been that Jim never saw the "magic document" as I have referred to it, the document being some written instrument between only M&P and Halcon and which only M&P and Halcon really know what is contained therein. I may be off base in these assumptions and if so I politely ask Jim to correct the errors in my understanding.. 

Permalink Reply by ShaleAdvice (Steven C. Townsend) on February 21, 2013 at 3:36pm
Sam,

Pursuant to the rules of professional conduct, a lawyer cannot provide non-legal services if the client is likely to be confused. That is, if they believe a law firm or lawyer is representing them it doesn't matter if their is a disclaimer. I don't see how anyone can advise a landowner as to the very technical and complicated legal terms in an oil and gas lease and then say they are not providingn legal services.
This post is not specific to any particular person.
Permalink Reply by Jim Litwinowicz on February 21, 2013 at 3:43pm

The presentations were given by the lawyers.  I did not speak to the group at any of these. And as such I will allow this to play out in court as I have great respect in our legal system.

RSS

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

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service