Found this post on Has anybody heard anymore? Thought there would be lots of comments. I know that I will be opting OUT!!!   

      The settlement is only in Chesapeake's favor. This class action, along with any other settlement, will change your lease forever. Once you accept a settlement that allows them to take any deductions,  then you are giving them the right to take them forever, even if you think that your lease is a NO DEDUCTION lease. You also give up your right to certain future lawsuits against Chesapeake.

     Watch for the notice in the mail. It is not junk mail, and affects your future. OPT OUT!!!!  Do not give in to Chesapeake.

More Info


​If you receive royalties from Chesapeake based on a lease that contains a Market Enhancement Clause, you should be aware that the Court entered an Order on October 2, 2015 certifying a Settlement Class and preliminarily approving the proposed Class Settlement in the Demchak Partners class action case, and establishing December 17, 2015 as the deadline to exclude yourself from the Class Settlement. For more information, see our FAQ page titled How Does the Proposed Class Settlement in the Demchak Partners Clas...

Views: 4489

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

My lease clearly states that the Lessee shall not deduct for producing,gathering.storing,seperation,treating,dehydrating,compressing,processing,transporting and marketing. If i accept this settelment and all these deductions stop, I would think that would be a good thing to have happen.  Isn't that what we are all complaining about? If i do get one in the mail, the first thing i will do is talk to the attorney that wrote up our lease and have him explain just what the hell it says. Should be interesting.

Sircdric, Do you have the market enhancement clause?  This settlement does not stop deductions. It only reduces them. Once you take the settlement, that gives them the right to take out the deductions at a reduced rate,no ifs, ands, or buts. Regardless what your lease says. Even if you are not receiving royalties yet, it still affects you.


Knowing what it said before you signed it would have been better don't you agree ?

What advice was provided to you then (at that time / prior to your signing) I wonder ?

Our lease was reviewed by 2 lawyers before we signed. We thought we knew what we were signing. No deductions unless they enhanced the gas to get better price. So far we do not know what they are doing to enhance the gas, but they are taking out deductions . They say that the Kilmer case gives them the right to take deductions. It is our take on it  against theirs.

Best of luck in your endeavor here Sherre.

All very good to know.

Don't entirely understand how a different case can grant another to disregard a different agreement other than another magistrate / judge ruling precedent has been established.

That would seem to require a seperate ruling.

The more I read about these things the more it (the whole leasing process) appears to me to be akin to 'legal fodder'.
Standing by.
Is it a precedent ?

Or is it a precedent only by virtue of the specific magistrate's / judge's ruling / determination / opinion ? Could that vary among the magistrates / judges presiding over any individual incident / case ?

If so why does Contract Law exist ?

Very troubling indeed.
What geography / leases are involved in this ?

PA / Marcellus or OH / Utica ?

Where (what State) is this involvement occurring ?

What does Mr. Ron Hale have to say about the proposed settlement I wonder (even if his lease is not involved) ?

Whatever happens and how the lessors react could establish precedent I would think.

Is it going to be 'how goes this so goes CHK's (maybe the whole / entire) leasing market in Ohio (or where ever ?)' ? ? ?
Thanks Philip.

Alot to read but, gettin' the gist of it.

Pretty horrible.

Wonder how much money they (the lessors) leave on the table / walk away from by approving it and after paying whatever their expenses end up being (including their attornies' cut of their settlement) ?

Makes a fellow wonder if it wouldn't be better to sell their rights instead of leasing them and potentially becoming so embroiled ? Seems to me (selling all or a portion) would basically be like 'settling' prior to going through all of the attorney / court headaches / delays involved. Got to be careful here however because I can see there would also be complications / costs incurred in selling. Perhaps legal embroilment / disputes anyway (maybe involving drilling operations impacting the surface owner negatively for instance) ?

Ugly thoughts.

As 'settling' must save the defendants tons of money (guessing here but why would they 'settle' if not) and releases them from being penalized / punished it seems unjust / slanted to their great benefit when I step back and try to get an overview.

Tons of concerns and worries for the landowner / lessor in the Utica / Marcellus zones.

What do the rest of you folks think ?
Could be that my thought process is exactly what they want to promote.

That is 'selling' instead of 'leasing'.

Could that be at the bottom of the behavior ?

Are they demonstrating how seriously / profoundly the deck is 'stacked' against the land / mineral owners / lessors for the purpose of encouraging 'selling' as opposed to 'leasing' ? ?

Seems to mean to me that all that needs to be done is offer to 'settle' without admission of guilt and with the caveat of no further action upon agreement to the terms.

Seems to me to be pretty strong medicine when they have the courts / laws providing opportunity to slip any noose that may otherwise come to bear.

None of my skin (or the skin of any of mine) in this specific circumstance so if it's all good with the 'plaintiffs' the matter is addressed I guess.

Sets a concerning precedent however - to say the least / the most I can say about it.

Quite a merry-go-round (the way I see it).

So you had a good lease but Chesapeake took deductions anyway.

Now they legalize the fraud & theft of PA landowners by using the court system.

I would opt out "Yesterday" and keep the names of the lawyers who made this possible to ensure I don't fall victim to them again in the future.

Let the few share the 7.5 Million and eventually we will get it right.

Let's see,

40% for the lawyers, a percentage for the lead Complainants, fees & expenses, Expert Witnesses, Forensic O&G Auditor,  and a little something for those landowners who were robbed.

I can guarantee they didn't recover their losses.


© 2022   Created by Keith Mauck (Site Publisher).   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service