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 Samuel J. Orr on February 26, 2013 at 3:25am

Easy question: I am certain that Halcon's answer to Mount Jackson 4's class action was filed and was available on the long run thread. The landowners complaint is found on page 18 so it must have been later. Can someone tell me Halcon's answer is located. I know I should be able to find it? 

Permalink Reply by Samuel J. Orr on February 26, 2013 at 1:38pm

Apparently my question is not so easily answered!? Help from whoever can provide it!

Permalink Reply by Kevin Senich on February 26, 2013 at 2:14pm

I have scanned the Amended Answer and will attempt to attach it.

Attachments:
Permalink Reply by Mike C. on February 26, 2013 at 2:30pm

Solid reply by Halcon.  I wonder why M&P and CX were not targeted instead.  It seems as if the misrepresentations made by CX in particular would constitute fraud in the inducement.  CX members could have signed elsewhere and now they are left holding the bag.

Permalink Reply by Rockjul on February 26, 2013 at 2:34pm

 

Mr. Orr:

This was originally posted by ShaleAdcice on page 16. It is still there along with the complaint PDF if you need to take another look at the complaint.

 

Permalink Reply by Samuel J. Orr on February 26, 2013 at 2:44pm

Thanks Rockjul. I thought it was after page 18 which explains how I missed it. You ought to receive an award for such a great thread! It has been very stimulating and I will miss it when the thread dies out as it seems finally to be doing. Still over 300 posts in less than 3 weeks is very impressive. I still hope that Halcon has to pay all members of the Mount Jackson 4 group in Mercer County, apart from my strong criticisms of M&P / CX.

Permalink Reply by Rockjul on February 26, 2013 at 3:08pm

   

Samuel:

            I was only asking about a set of questions I think everyone has in MJLG4.  It just happened to be a subject people were not getting answers about and everyone posted some information they had and some very good thoughts and views by a few legal savvy people. No award needed. I just want to see people who have a lot at stake get some answers. I personally only have about 5 acres and for me it was not an issue about a large sum of money I lost out on it was the principle of the whole deal that fuels my fire. I hope everyone learned from all the info that was shared. I would like to see follow up posts on any new information on either of the two cases that come available. Thanks again to everyone who has been participating in this thread.

Permalink Reply by Rockjul on February 26, 2013 at 3:58pm

After going back and reading a couple e-mails from CX / M&P it just does not make any sense the e-mail letting us know Halcon backed out of half of the leases does not include anything about Halcon breaching a contract or anything that leads me to believe M&P or CX didn't expect this. The concern seems to be lets try to get the one that was not excepted another lease. here is a copy of that e-mail

 

September 12, 2012

 

Dear Mt. Jackson Group 4 Landowners:

 

Halcón Energy Resources has informed us that it has made a decision in regard to the scope of its exploration and leasing of oil and gas rights in Mercer County. This decision affects approximately half of the parcels and landowners that signed leases over the past few months. Halcón has informed us that it has chosen to narrow its area of operations based on selecting desired cities, boroughs, and townships within Mercer County rather than the entire county based on its evaluation of where it can best develop commercial oil and gas wells.

 

Below are the groupings of cities, boroughs, and townships based on information received from Halcón.

 

Group 1 is the list of boroughs and townships where Halcón has informed us it DOES plan to fund leases for Mt. Jackson Group 4 acreage, meaning it plans on continuing to conduct title diligence, and pay up-front bonuses, subject to title diligence only, in the following boroughs and townships:

 

Boroughs

Fredonia

Greenville Borough

Jamestown Borough

Sandy Lake Borough

Sheakleyville Borough

Stoneboro Borough

 

 Townships

Fairview Township

Greene Township

Hempfield Township

Otter Creek Township

Perry Township

Salem Township

Sandy Creek Township

Sandy Lake Township

South Pymatuning Township

Sugar Grove Township

West Salem Township

 

Halcón informs us that they are currently processing leases for all Mt. Jackson Group 4 acreage in Group 1, and subject to title review, plans to make bonus payments based on net acreage in November and December of 2012.

 

Group 2 is the list of cities, boroughs, and townships where Halcón has informed us it DOES NOT plan to fund leases for Mt. Jackson Group 4 acreage, meaning it does not plan to conduct title diligence, and does not plan to pay up front bonuses for the following cities, boroughs, and townships: 

 

Cities

Farrell

Hermitage

Sharon

 

 Boroughs

Clark

Grove City

Jackson Center

Mercer

New Lebanon

Sharpsville

West Middlesex

Wheatland

 

 Townships

Coolspring Township

Deer Creek Township

Delaware Township

East Lackawannock Township

Findley Township

French Creek Township

Jackson Township

Jefferson Township

Lackawannock Township

Lake Township

Liberty Township

Mill Creek Township

New Vernon Township

Pine Township

Pymatuning Township

Shenango Township

Springfield Township

Wilmington Township

Wolf Creek Township

Worth Township

 

 

 

 

 

We know that this is disappointing news for many of you who are receiving this letter that have parcels in Group 2. CX Energy and M&P will continue to serve you whether your parcels are in the cities, boroughs, or townships listed in Groups 1 or 2 above. We will also continue to communicate with Halcón, as necessary.

 

With regard to the parcels in the rejected cities, boroughs, and townships listed in Group 2 above, CX Energy and M&P are actively pursuing other oil and gas companies to obtain new offers for a lease. Remember that CX Energy and M&P do not receive fees for your parcels until after you receive your bonus money, and we intend to conduct another round of marketing to identify an alternative oil & gas company to lease your parcels in Group 2. 

 

We plan to have two meetings for landowners with parcels in Group 2 on Tuesday, September 18, 2012. The first will be at the Lakeview High School auditorium in Stoneboro, PA at 6pm and the second will be held at the Grove City High School auditorium in Grove City, PA at 8pm.  Our staff will be available in person at both meetings to review the details of this development and answer any of your questions. Please save your questions for the meetings since many of them will be answered during the presentation.

 

Sincerely,

 

CX-Energy                                                                   Morascyzk & Polochak, Attorneys at Law

724-933-1311                                                              412-564-5695

MtJax4@cx-energy.com                                             MtJax4@mopolaw.com

Permalink Reply by Samuel J. Orr on February 26, 2013 at 3:47pm

Thank you Rockjul: I found Halcon's amended answer on page 16 where you said it would be. I printed it out and read it. A major part of Halcon's defense is that M&P changed the language of Halcon's Order for Payment. Assuming this allegation is true, we can hope that some of the lawyers who have graciously commented on this thread will now at least offer an opinion if such an allegation, if true, would excuse Halcon from accepting leases on a whole number of properties that were part of M&P's Mount Jackson 4 landowners group. I believe this question may be at least one of the determining factors in deciding how likely it is that the landowners will succeed in their class action against Halcon!!  

Permalink Reply by Rockjul on February 26, 2013 at 4:13pm

  

If M&P/CX didn’t change the Order For Payment why would Halcon go on record saying that it was fraudulently left out of the landowners copy of the order for payment by CX/M&P. with this kind of statement on record combined with the lack of concern about a breach of contract in the body of the e-mail I just posted makes me think CX / M&P knowingly misrepresented all of us and committed fraud by changing the document if indeed they did. If it is proven they did intentionally leave out part of the order of payment MJLG4 should go after them and shut them down.

Permalink Reply by Kevin Senich on February 26, 2013 at 4:19pm

The Halcon Order of Payment, Exhbit "A" of the Amended Answer is identical to the  Vodenichar Order of Payment, Exhibit "2" Pg. 1 of the Complaint but for the addition of the word "geology" in the first line of the Halcon OOP.  That line reads:

Lessee shall, subject to its inspection, approval of the surface, geology, and title, approval of any liens ... (emphasis added)

The Vodenichar OOP has no "geology". 

This is a form produced by Halcon.  It is difficult to imagine M&P/CX alterring it, but it could be done. 

This is why I wondered in a previous post just how many landowners were rejected for "geology".   I think it was probably more of a business decision on Halcon's part.  They chose the areas most likely to be most profitable.  As others have accurately stated, they cherry picked acreage from the 60,000 total.

The real question that has puzzled me since I first studied this issue is why the OOP, whether it be Halcon's or Vodenichar's, differs so drastically from the Offer of Lease all the landowners of MJLG4 made to Halcon.  As I have said, if Halcon were to have accepted the uniform offer from the landowners, the OOPs would have had identical language.  Whatever the LOI says, clearly it was not an acceptance of the landowners' offer.

  

 

 

 

Permalink Reply by Rockjul on February 26, 2013 at 4:51pm

 

Being rejected for geology could be the same as being rejected because it was not as profitable as other areas because of the Dry/Wet areas seeming to be dividing Mercer County. I thought I read an article or saw a map showing the more southeast you moved in Mercer County the dryer the gas was, so I would think that geology played a big role in southeast part of the county. I would think the geology would be the second thing Halcon would have looked at after looking at the title. Either way if the word GEOLOGY would have been in the order for payment people would have questioned that without a doubt. The question I have now is how was order for payment in our lease lacking that very important word? I did not see a copy of exhibit "A" or exhibit "2" was it posted?

RSS

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

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service