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 Jesse V. on February 21, 2013 at 3:08am

If the LOI has a confidentiality clause I can understand why M&P can't just be passing out copies of it. The contents should have been clearly explained and disclosed to the group, which I assume CX/M&P believe that they did. 

Can anyone explain to me why M&P did not bring on this suit as the representatives of the MJLG4 or why HALCON was allowed to keep portions of the group, effectively devaluing and weakening the portion of the group excluded? 

Permalink Reply by Kevin Senich on February 21, 2013 at 3:43am

Jesse V.

I think your assumption is probably correct.  M&P/CX likely believe the contents were fully explained.  But, why was the LOI confidential when nothing in the offers from the individual members of the group contemplated a confidential relationship between their agents and their prospective lessee?

Even if your assumption is correct, what Halcon thought it was buying and what the landowners as a group thought they were selling appear to be two different things.  M&P/CX were the only people talking to both sides. 

Things can be explained.  But, are they understood?

Permalink Reply by Samuel J. Orr on February 21, 2013 at 4:00am

Lets make this simple. If as M&P asserts Halcon was obligated to fund all the leases for all the acreage on the Mount Jackson 4 group subject only to particular landowners having good title, then WHY did M&P permit and encourage the landowners to sign " leases" or "options to lease" conditioning Halcon's duty to pay not only upon good title BUT upon "such other due diligence as lessee may at its sole discretion require" or words to similar effect? The "such other diligence" requirement must mean something and must clearly contemplate that there are other unspecified things constituting due diligence that would excuse Halcon from funding leases on any particular piece of property. All clauses in leases are presumed to mean something and this necessarily applies to the "due diligence" language of the documents. The question remains what is included in such "due diligence" and whether  Halcon learned  or did something within the meaning of "due diligence" that would  excuse it from paying bonus money on any particular piece of property? The  "due diligence" terminology is problematic but if it can be defined, then one can ask whether there is something included within that term that excuses Halcon from paying a particular landowner for his acreage.  I find the secret agreement if it is an agreement between M&P and Halcon troubling especially since its exact contents are unknown and also because it was not attached to or made a part of the leases which were signed. Mr. Senich's most recent post is an incisive and persuasive analysis of multiple questions both factual and legal. If only we had "the magic document" between M&P and Halcon?...but we don't. I think one of the reasons why the landowners did not sue M&P is money. If Halcon declined to pay "lease"' constituting a total of 40,000 acres at $3850/acre, the potential judgment against it would be $154,000,000. I doubt M&P's pockets are that deep even if it has what might otherwise be considered good insurance!?

Permalink Reply by Rockjul on February 21, 2013 at 11:32am

  

Mr. Orr:

          I think you bring up a good point about the "such other due diligents" if it means no more than the 1st sentence in my order for payment then why even have it in the lease. I think M&P knows a lot more than they are letting us believe. I think they are playing the game as to post blame on Halcon.

Mr. Senich:

           Every time you respond to something I post it just gets the wheels turning even more, with more questions and more doubt about how M&P claims to be an innocent agent caught in the middle. You have been giving me a whole new way to think about some of the things that are in question. Thanks for paticipating and giving us some of your insight. 

 

           I think I am going to Call Jones and Gregg as an MJLG4 member and ask a few questions including how this agreement is a confidential one when what it contains affected how each member is affected directly and how M&P is not being held responsible for not telling us that the agreement was confidential. Not one time at any of the pre signing meetings did they let us know anything about this LOI except for the fact that Halcon did sign it  and never mentioned we could not see it or there was anything different from the leases we signed.

Permalink Reply by Samuel J. Orr on February 21, 2013 at 12:03pm

I am happy if my comments have been helpful. I try my best to pose what I think are important questions. For the answers, I believe Mr. Brink, Mr. Senich, and Mr. Townsend have all spent time analyzing a lot of legal issues and answering a great number of questions as well. I hope this particular thread continues. I go back and read the entire thread every 4 or 5 days. Of course we are all handicapped by not having access to what I refer to as the "magic document"  between M&P and Halcon, that magic document that purportedly requires Halcon to pay each and every member of the Mount Jackson 4 group who had good title to his or her land. 

Permalink Reply by James Brink, Esq. on February 21, 2013 at 1:36pm

I believe I saw on the CX or M&P website that the LOI would be revealed in their offices if the landowner appeared with an attorney.  Frankly, I am quite curious now.  Anybody feel like taking a road trip to Cranberry?

Permalink Reply by Rockjul on February 21, 2013 at 1:54pm

  

Mr. Brink:

             I would not be opposed to accompanying you to the CX office as a member of MJLG4 so I could see the document and to get your opinion on the language of it.

Permalink Reply by Jim Litwinowicz on February 21, 2013 at 12:35pm

I have been following this thread for some time trying to understand the issues discussed. I first met M & P in Oct of '10 when I attended a meeting.  I joined the Mt Jackson group and was rewarded with a good lease with good terms in Sept of 2011. Since then I have been working with them in other areas.  In all that time, I never heard of Terra or of any lawsuit involving M & P.  The first I heard of either was when it was posted on GMS on another thread two weeks ago. I will state unequivocally they have always been very professional and have had the the highest ethical standards and I am proud to work with them.

One thing I have learned over time is that there are usually three sides to every story......his side, her side, and the truth somewhere in between.  Sometimes one side or the other has it just right but that seems rare. I would advise everyone to wait to hear both sides and to see how the suit is judge in a court of law.

Permalink Reply by James Brink, Esq. on February 21, 2013 at 1:32pm

Welcome to the discussion, Jim.  Maybe you can shed some light for us since you were affiliated with CX and/or M&P.  Have you seen the letter of intent between Halcon and M&P/CX?  Can you tell us what it said?  More important, since you posted incessantly in the past inviting landowners to leasing meetings with M&P and CX, can you tell us what the landowners were told?  Were promises made that all landowners would be paid unless a title defect was found?  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. Your input will be anxiously anticipated by the group. 

Permalink Reply by Rockjul on February 21, 2013 at 1:57pm

Jim:

       Mr Brink has a Good point and I second his motion.

Permalink Reply by Oliver Perry on February 21, 2013 at 2:12pm

I third their motion Jim, please step up to the plate and speak.

Permalink Reply by Jim Litwinowicz on February 21, 2013 at 3:19pm

There were several hundred landowners at the meetings.  They can better answer what they heard. After all, they are the ones at issue here.

RSS

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

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service