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 21, 2013 at 4:14pm

Jim, that is an excellent point.  I have been involved in multi-party litigation and what you say is true.  Then the question becomes: Why are there differing opinions in the first place?  I understand recollections can vary from person to person, such is human nature.  But what I am reading here is that the folks were left grasping for answers to their questions.  Now they seem to have found a common ground with similarly situation folks and they are sharing their individual recollections.  That's all.  The intent of this forum is not to disparage anybody, unlike some of the Ohio forums I have been following. This goes to you and any other person who has been mentioned in these posts. Rather, these folks are just looking for answers. Nothing more. 

Permalink Reply by Jim Litwinowicz on February 21, 2013 at 4:21pm

I fully understand that people are looking for clarity. And I understand their anger and disappointment. I was on pins and needles waiting for my bonus check and can't imagine how badly it must feel. I know they want answers. And they deserve answers. But  a fully public forum is not the ideal place to discuss this. There is no doubt that all parties are reading every post on this site and more. I surely don't want to muddy the waters any more than it already is.

Permalink Reply by Rockjul on February 21, 2013 at 4:19pm

Jim:

     If so then why wouldnt our counsel contact us and explain the downside of our conversation here and  let us know more of the details in what is being watched and what may be used against us, that is if we do have counsel who can advise us of that. Isnt that what an attorney does for his clients?

Permalink Reply by ShaleAdvice (Steven C. Townsend) on February 21, 2013 at 4:25pm
I disagree. I think public discussion is exactly where this conversation needs to be. No more back room deals.
Permalink Reply by Mike C. on February 22, 2013 at 6:34am

Jim if I were you I would get off this board.  You are as guilty as anyone with what you have posted here in the past.  You stated that Halcon had to take the acreage and you even boasted about it.  When I asked you back then what you will say when landowners are dumped you called me a crazy liberal with an agenda when in reality my question was 100% on point.  If M&P and CX are in fact monitoring what you are saying and they are still allowing you to post then they are as bad at monitoring as they are at marketing.

Permalink Reply by Jim Litwinowicz on February 21, 2013 at 3:45pm

"Did M&P and CX already have their deal with Halcon prior to holding landowners' meetings?  It would seem that this must have been the case if a letter of intent exists"

Lets ask 100 people at random to read this and then ask their interpretation of it. What people read on a blog without the context and voice inflection of the spoken word can often be interpreted in different ways.  Caution is always advisable. I have often been misinterpreted in different blogs and in email.  Can get embarrassing. No problem.

Permalink Reply by James Brink, Esq. on February 21, 2013 at 3:55pm

Agreed.  But in this case, I made the context clear.  No accusations were being made.  No embarrassing statements that can be taken out of context exist.  As I said earlier, I will publicly accede to your point.  That was clear, too.  If you want to ask 100 people at random to read two sentences that you highlighted, then in all fairness, provide them with my contextual explanations.  It's all about fairness, right?  Either through this forum or otherwise.

Permalink Reply by Rockjul on February 21, 2013 at 4:34pm

ShaleAdvice :

I disagree. I think public discussion is exactly where this conversation needs to be. No more back room deals.
 
 

                     that is my exact feelings too it was a public forum when we signed the leases why not talk about it here and raise the awareness with other  MJLG4 members so they can all be aware of what is going on.

Permalink Reply by Samuel J. Orr on February 22, 2013 at 3:35am

M&P's fee was 6% though I believe  at some point they said it would be 8% for late signers  to the Mount Jackson 4 marketing agreement. This was a percentage of the bonus money. There was no %tage to be paid to M&P or CX of any royalty income. I know this from multiple postings by people who were in the group. What exactly the relationship was and how moneys were divided between M&P / CX is unknown to me but the total fee was 6% generally. Jim has earned money through his association with CX and he has publicly stated that so I feel free in discussing that point. I tend to agree that more discussion of the issues is needed not less. M&P seems to have never denied that they represented to multiple people on multiple occasions that all the landowners would be paid subject only to the condition that they had good title. It seems to me that from multiple posts that the landowners all thought that the an O&G company had to accept all of the properties or none of the properties. I would like to hear comments from M&P about whether they represented that fact. Especially since M&P/CX were perfectly happy to collect the $5,000,000 as their fees while leaving the aggrieved landowners twisting in the wind.  I believe each of the aggrieved landowners from M&P received a letter from M&P stating that they (M&P) strongly believed that Halcon had no right to reject any property except for defects in title. Perhaps one of the landowners can post the text of that letter. Much may or may not depend upon the nature and content of Mr. Moracyzk's  and Mr. Polochak's magic document and whether it can be used to in effect modify or supplement  the leases or lease options between Halcon and the landowners?? The "leases" or "lease options" might be found to be integrated contracts. Suffice it to say M&P's drafting or alternatively their review of the lease language falls well short of getting an A plus. In fact I think that the "lease" should be posted and that law students from the University of Pittsburgh  and Duquesne's law school should be asked to weigh in. Law Students v. M&P! I say the law students will win the day but maybe not? There is always Mr. Moracyzk's and Mr. Polochak's "magic document' which may yet save the day for the aggrieved landowners and for M&P.  In the meantime the leviathan of M&P/CX rolls forward in Venango County.

Permalink Reply by Oliver Perry on February 22, 2013 at 4:38am

Sam,

The lease was posted in this thread on page 18 by Mr. Senich. Its in the first pdf attachment of his post. The language in the lease seems clear to me, but I would like to see this "Magic Document" that M&P claims supersedes the lease language.

Permalink Reply by Samuel J. Orr on February 22, 2013 at 5:07am

Thanks Oliver! I really try to keep up. I think it would also be helpful if the marketing agreement that landowners signed with M&P, CX, or M&P/CX. That might define what the obligations of M&P/CX were toward the Mount Jackson 4 landowners and whether the lands were to be marketed as a "take all or take none" aggregate.This is one of the longest running threads and one of the most enlightening. Thanks to Rockjul for starting it. I agree with Steven Townsend that more discussion and not less is better. I will go back and read the lease terms. I was not joking about hoping the area law students get in on this. I hope someone on this thread perhaps knows a law student at each of the schools. Their contributions would be helpful and they would learn a lot in the process. We also would learn a lot.   

Permalink Reply by James Brink, Esq. on March 5, 2013 at 2:30am

Jim L:  I just want to give you an opportunity to clear the record.  The question I am posing is quite simple and straightforward.  Was the deal between Halcon and M&P/CX, by way of Letter of Intent or otherwise, already made prior to the June 2012 landowners' meetings?  That is, were the folks still being told that their mineral interests were being shopped around to other producers at the time the landowners meetings were being held in June 2012?  No accusations - just facts.

RSS

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

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service