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 Samuel J. Orr on February 21, 2013 at 4:46pm

I apologize for my misrepresentation in stating that you had told landowners they would be paid if they had good title. it was an honest mistake.

Permalink Reply by Jim Litwinowicz on February 22, 2013 at 6:22am

Mr Senich.  The LOI is available for all members to read along with an attorney if they so desire.  In fact, several have done so along with attorneys including the law firm involved in the lawsuit according to what Rockjul posted.  None have said that M & P was at fault or filed a suit against them. It would appear that the LOI is quite binding.

Permalink Reply by Kevin Senich on February 22, 2013 at 7:36am

Mr. Litwinowicz:

I think I have been as fair as I can in my analysis so far.  But, the confidential nature of the LOI is incongruous in light of the uniform offer each of the members of MJLG4 made to Halcon. 

I have thoroughly studied the MJLG4 offer to Halcon.  Nothing, absolutely nothing therein suggests that M&P/CX is authorized to receive a confidential letter of acceptance of the landowners group members' offers.  If it is in the offer, please show it to me.  See Page 28 of Exhibit 2 of the (Vodenichar) Complaint.

If M&P/CX cannot give a copy of the LOI to the MJLG4 members because it feels those members cannot keep a confidence, it begs the question of why they accepted a confidential LOI in satisfaction of the condition precedent in the first place.  There is nothing proprietary about the MJLG4's offers.  Why should there be anything proprietary about Halcon's acceptance?

As regards members and their attorneys having seen the LOI and not said M&P/CX are at fault or sued, I will accept your word.  But, I don't find that fact in itself to be determinative.  Many factors other than right and wrong must be considered before filing a lawsuit. 

If this LOI were "quite binding" as you say, I would believe M&P would have brought suit on behalf of the rejected MJLG4 landowners long before this.  The patent fact is that there is a substantial question as to whether Halcon is bound to pay the rejected landowners.  If it were "quite binding" Halcon would just write a check.  They would not compound what they would have to concede is a mistake -- leasing unwanted acreage -- with litigation costs in a losing lawsuit.  Halcon is sufficiently well-heeled to cover the rejected leases if it felt its LOI was "quite binding". 

My best guess is that the LOI is "not quite binding".  How good are you on Texas law? 

 

 

Permalink Reply by Jim Litwinowicz on February 21, 2013 at 3:12pm

"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"

Thats a pretty accusatory accusation to make with out any evidence.

Permalink Reply by James Brink, Esq. on February 21, 2013 at 3:24pm

I did not intend to accuse anybody of anything, Jim.  If you can recall, we had this discussion over a year ago and, if you can also recall, I acceded to your point then in a subsequent posting.  And I am again willing to accede to your point now, too.  The only question that I posed, and the inquiry is also being made by some of your own clients, is what really happened here.  That's all.  Period. No accusations.  No ulterior motives.  And there is certainly no ill will on my part towards you or anyone else.  I agree with your prior postings that there may be differing versions of the same story. So, what's the story if you can say?  If you can't say because of a confidentiality provision, we certainly can understand that.

Permalink Reply by Rockjul on February 21, 2013 at 3:38pm

  

Jim:

       Mr. Senich ask for someone to confirm and authenticate what I understood and heard at the meetings. I am not sure I remember who you were but you must have been at the same meetings I was at. Please correct me if I am wrong is that not what was being conveyed at the meetings.

Permalink Reply by Rockjul on February 21, 2013 at 3:50pm

  

Maybe Mr. Morascyzk could join in and let us know what the problem was with what anyone said. As I see it we are all entitled to have our own opinion about the different questions in this thread. Wouldn’t it have been easier to just show the landowners what the agreement said instead of keeping us in the dark before it was plunged into a legal battle with a different law firm. I don't believe anyone is being intentionally malicious towards a particular person or group just trying to brainstorm the issues at hand in a roundtable format that brings a variety of different ways to look at the questions to the table. Is this not a right we have as citizens of the USA?

Permalink Reply by James Brink, Esq. on February 21, 2013 at 4:00pm

That's what I thought, Rockjul.  Obviously, this opinion is not shared by everyone.

Permalink Reply by Jim Litwinowicz on February 22, 2013 at 6:07am

I wouldn't expect Mr Morascyzk to discuss client's issues on a public forum. Especially when there is litigation involved.  I am sure Mr Brink would not do so.

Any client is welcome to call, go to the office, read the LOI along with an outside attorney if they so desire. They can also attend meetings at any location and ask questions afterwards. I recommend that be done in a private discussion.

I would suggest that Mr Brink offer Rockjul to take his case pro bono and the two of them can go to the office and read the LOI. 

The LOI is confidential to the public, not to members or their legal representation. Members and their attorneys can read it any time the desire. If copies were given to a 1000 landowners how long would it be before copies are posted on the net?

Permalink Reply by Samuel J. Orr on February 22, 2013 at 6:18am

Jim: That is all well and good but how do you explain the diversion of calls and the failure to return voicemails by M&P? They seem to have moved on to "greener pastures"! I have not seen postings on this website by any of the aggrieved landowners that say anything nice about M&P since the debacle. M&P's major advertising effort has lbeen to stress their ability to aggregate properties into a group and by strength in numbers get ALL the landowners a better price. If this were true how did Halcon get to cherrypick and how did those landowners who were left out in the cold benefit from M&P's marketing efforts?  

Permalink Reply by Jim Litwinowicz on February 22, 2013 at 6:30am

Sam; M & P has been overwhelmed by calls since this happened. Their staff is trying to keep up but this along with their other workload has overloaded their capacity. In an effort to keep people updated they held several meetings for members only after this broke and just had an update meeting in Grove City. They will probably have another next month since the Mercer group got a lot interest at NAPE two weeks ago.

As for other efforts, they are continuing to market the group.  They flew to Houston in the fall and met with several companies and were successful in getting many members a lease with a different company. I am sure they are doing a lot more than I know.

Permalink Reply by Jim Litwinowicz on February 21, 2013 at 4:03pm

Rockjul; What people need to understand that every post here is being monitored by all interested parties. I know that for a fact and by experience.  Everything that every one says can and will be used by either side if it benefits them.  Halcon would have no hesitation to enter it in evidence or to subpena the person making the post.

If you post "I heard such and such" and another person says "Thats not what they said, they said such and such" Halcon will use that to confuse the issue and try to get out of paying all the landowners. True for both sides in this battle royale.Tens of millions of dollars are at stake here and everything will be use in the fight. Everyone needs to be very cautious in what they post.

RSS

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

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service