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 20, 2013 at 4:35am

Is it likely that a court will compel Halcon and M&P to disclose their confidential agreement at least to the aggrieved Mount Jackson 4 landowners. It would seem to me that whether the landowners have a strong case against M&P or in the alternative against Halcon depends to some extent upon the exact wording of this secret agreement. Or has said document been disclosed to the landowners' class action attorneys? If it has been so disclosed is it that agreement that is subject to the protective order? I am referring to the agreement that M&P says it has with Halcon that allegedly obligates Halcon to pay all the landowners in the Mount Jackson 4 group if in fact said landowners have good title.

Permalink Reply by ralph monico on February 20, 2013 at 6:48am

There are ethical questions sown throughout this entire mess and pretty much crystalized in the complaint filed against Halcon . . .

Permalink Reply by Kevin Senich on February 20, 2013 at 8:41am

With no intent at humor Mr. Orr, you are beginning to understand precisely what it is that the attorneys do not understand either. 

The document that is Page 28 (of 29) of the Exhibits attached to the Complaint requires a letter of intent from Halcon to M&P/CX "stating that Halcon agrees to accept leases from all group members" ... and "guarantee the Signing Bonus payment for every net mineral acre with marketable title".  This is a conditional offer that each member of the MJLG4 group made to Halcon by and through the group's agents M&P/CX.  THE HALCON LOI REQUIRED AS THE CONDITION PRECEDENT TO THIS OFFER IS NOT A "CONFIDENTIAL AGREEMENT".  Nowhere in that offer does it suggest that this LOI should be confidential.  If M&P/CX received this LOI, they received it as agents for the "undersigned", the individual landowner.  The LOI itself necessarily belongs to the landowner.

Mr. Monico is absolutely correct.  This lawsuit raises numerous ethical issues as well as minimum standard of practice (malpractice) issues.

My best belief would be that Plaintiffs' attorneys do have the LOI.  I come to this belief with no specific knowledge, but rather by deduction.  Please understand that anything I might say is qualified by the fact that I am an Ohio lawyer and that the law of the case in this action is either Texas or Pennsylvania law.

Based on what I know of the case, I would believe ... that unless Plaintiffs' attorneys had the LOI and it clearly indicated an inarguable duty on the part of Halcon to the exclusion of any negligence, fraud, or breach of fiduciary duty on the part of M&P/CX, Plaintiffs' attorneys would have had to sue M&P/CX as well. They would have had to sue M&P/CX for at least two reasons.  First, at least in Ohio, if you do not sue Party B who may be liable in addition to, or in the alternative to Party A, and the case goes to judgment, you will thereafter be barred from suing Party B.  The legal/technical term for this is res judicata or collateral estoppel.  Basically what it means is that if you are harmed, you had better sue everybody responsbile for that harm in every way that they may be so responsible and do it at the same time because the law will not allow you to sue them one at a time, successively.  You may not come back after another party-defendant after you have been unsuccessful against the first, or try alternative theories of recovery one at a time.  You need to sue all the parties on all the claims at the same time. 

The second reason why I believe Plainitiffs' attorneys have the LOI and that LOI exculpates M&P/CX is a practical one.  If they did not have the LOI or it did not exculpate the agents, it would be far too easy for Halcon to point the finger of blame in the direction of the non-party agents, M&P/CX.  This is the so-called "empty chair" defense.  Halcon could say, "We have no liability, and the people who do are M&P/CX, Your Honor!"  If Halcon proves M&P/CX are responsible, and they are not parties defendant, the landowners are SOL. 

Finally, I admit I am somewhat disquieted in this sense.  If M&P/CX were joined as party defendants in this action, it would destroy the basis of federal jurisdiction, diversity.  I trust that Plaintiffs' counsel have fully studied this issue, and they are not letting M&P/CX off the hook solely to preserve a choice of venue. 

My best understanding based on the pleadings is that Plaintiffs' attorneys not only have the LOI, but also that they are VERY sure that full responsbility lies with Halcon.

 

   

 

 

 

 

 

Permalink Reply by Samuel J. Orr on February 20, 2013 at 9:34am

Kevin Senich: Brilliant exposition and analysis on your part. Since you are an Ohio lawyer perhaps you can bring some enlightened analysis or even speculation as to what may be happening in Washington County, Ohio where an attorney/landowner group is about to have a mass signing of leases in favor of a shell company even though the group seems to be led or advised by an attorney who has successfully concluded deals with other O&G companies in the past. Many questions have be posed by a number of persons and no forthcoming answers have been posted. Maybe there is some investigative or law enforcement agency in Ohio who might look at this but I do not no who that agency would be. Ohio is so very different than Pennsylvania and it clearly appears to not fall within the jurisdiction of the Ohio Attorney General. Even if you do not wish to post something you should find the thread very interesting. The thread is entitled "Help Research DUX Petroleum LLC". I again thank you for your most recent analysis and commentary about the M&P/CX , Halcon, Mount Jackson 4 situation in Pennsylvania.

Permalink Reply by Jim Litwinowicz on February 21, 2013 at 3:32pm

My best understanding based on the pleadings is that Plaintiffs' attorneys not only have the LOI, but also that they are VERY sure that full responsbility lies with Halcon.

So you are saying that by basic law practices you can deduce that M & P were not party to the lawsuit because the LOI appears to be exculpatory. Not that you are stating it as fact but stating that it is a reasonable deduction. Maybe everyone needs to wait to see what the courts decide.

  The legal/technical term for this is res judicata or collateral estoppel.  Basically what it means is that if you are harmed, you had better sue everybody responsbile for that harm in every way that they may be so responsible and do it at the same time because the law will not allow you to sue them one at a time, successively.

So this a basic tenant of law. Interesting that none of the other learned attorneys on this thread mentioned this.

Permalink Reply by Kevin Senich on February 21, 2013 at 3:52pm

Mr. Litwinonwicz:

I apologize if anything I have said may be offensive.  Please understand that my interest in this thread is purely academic.  I definitely have no pony in this horse race.  I am just trying to figure out how this deal was supposed to work and what, if anything went wrong.

I am very confident that Jones, Gregg fully investigated the role of M&P/CX in this matter.  That they sued Halcon alone speaks volumes to me. 

Having said this, I am still unsettled as to why the LOI was confidential when the terms that the landowners relied on were so clear in their uniform, but individual, offer(s) of lease.  The LOI should should state agreement with those terms verbatim.  If so, it should be no secret.

The confidentiality of the LOI lends an aura of mystery, if not suspicion.  Transparency is the best way to dispel suspicion.

I keep thinking this is a riddle, and that there is a simple and obvious answer.  But, I really just don't get it..

 

 

 

Permalink Reply by ShaleAdvice (Steven C. Townsend) on February 21, 2013 at 3:59pm
Kevin,

You are absolutely right. All terms should be identical and should be fully explained by competent counsel.
Permalink Reply by Jim Litwinowicz on February 21, 2013 at 4:11pm

I took no offense. What you posted was very important. As for the confidentiality issue, I will let that up to the attorneys to explain.  See my post a couple of minutes ago on how this site is monitored.

Permalink Reply by Kevin Senich on February 21, 2013 at 4:41pm

Mr. Litwinowicz:

I did read your reply about how this site is being monitored.  I found it very interesting.

As a trial lawyer, I was trying to assess how anything said by any potential witness who posted on this site could prejudice the plaintiff class. 

The lawsuit is fundamentally a contract action between the plaintiff MJLG4 landowners individually and as a class against the defendant, Halcon. My understanding is that those parties had no communication with one another other than on paper.  As such, I am challenged to see how any of the potential plaintiff landowners could be a material witness for the defense.  Their entire case is based upon the belief that they signed their uniform leases secure in the knowledge that their offer of lease had been accepted by Halcon, and the precondition for their signing satisfied.  Their testimony could only confirm that.

But, you are right.  If anyone from M&P/CX were to post on this site, they may as well put themselves on the witness list.  I do not expect postings from those people even though I expect that some would just love to set us straight, or at least give us a hint.  For this reason, I do not take any inference from their silence.

 

Permalink Reply by J Landowner on February 20, 2013 at 12:02pm

Where are you seeing the Exhibits? All I can view is pages 1-18.

Several people where I work were in the group.

Permalink Reply by ShaleAdvice (Steven C. Townsend) on February 20, 2013 at 12:35pm
Did they get paid?
Permalink Reply by J Landowner on February 20, 2013 at 12:50pm

No they did not get paid.

RSS

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

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service