Item 3. Legal Proceedings

Litigation and Regulatory Proceedings

We are involved in a number of litigation and regulatory proceedings including those described below. Many of these proceedings are in early stages, and many of them seek or may seek damages and penalties, the amount of which is currently indeterminate. See Note 4 of the notes to our consolidated financial statements included in Item 8 of Part I of this report for information regarding our estimation and provision for potential losses related to litigation and regulatory proceedings.

Regulatory and Related Proceedings. We have received U.S. Postal Service and state subpoenas seeking information on our royalty payment practices. We have engaged in discussions with the U.S. Postal Service and state agency representatives and continue to respond to related subpoenas and demands.

Business Operations. We are involved in various other lawsuits and disputes incidental to our business operations, including commercial disputes, personal injury claims, royalty claims, property damage claims and contract actions.

Regarding royalty claims, we and other natural gas producers have been named in various lawsuits alleging royalty underpayments. The lawsuits against us allege, among other things, that we used below-market prices, made improper deductions, utilized improper measurement techniques, entered into arrangements with affiliates that resulted in underpayment of royalties in connection with the production and sale of natural gas and NGL, or similar theories. These lawsuits include cases filed by individual royalty owners and putative class actions, some of which seek to certify a statewide class. The lawsuits seek compensatory, consequential, treble, and punitive damages, restitution and disgorgement of profits, declaratory and injunctive relief regarding our royalty payment practices, pre-and post-judgment interest, and attorney’s fees and costs. Plaintiffs have varying royalty provisions in their respective leases, oil and gas law varies from state to state, and royalty owners and producers differ in their interpretation of the legal effect of lease provisions governing royalty calculations. We have resolved a number of these claims through negotiated settlements of past and future royalties and has prevailed in various other lawsuits. We are currently defending numerous lawsuits seeking damages with respect to underpayment of royalties in multiple states where we have operated, including the matters set forth below.

On December 9, 2015, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, by the Office of Attorney General, filed a lawsuit in the Bradford County Court of Common Pleas related to royalty underpayment and lease acquisition and accounting practices with respect to properties in Pennsylvania. The lawsuit, which primarily relates to the Marcellus Shale and Utica Shale, alleges that we violated the Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law (UTPCPL) by making improper deductions and entering into arrangements with affiliates that resulted in underpayment of royalties. The lawsuit includes other UTPCPL claims and antitrust claims, including that a joint exploration agreement to which we are a party established unlawful market allocation for the acquisition of leases. The lawsuit seeks statutory restitution, civil penalties and costs, as well as a temporary injunction from exploration and drilling activities in Pennsylvania until restitution, penalties and costs have been paid, and a permanent injunction from further violations of the UTPCPL.

Putative statewide class actions in Pennsylvania and Ohio and purported class arbitrations in Pennsylvania have been filed on behalf of royalty owners asserting various claims for damages related to alleged underpayment of royalties as a result of our divestiture of substantially all of our midstream business and most of our gathering assets in 2012 and 2013. These cases include claims for violation of and conspiracy to violate the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act and for an unlawful market allocation agreement for mineral rights, intentional interference with contractual relations, and violations of antitrust laws related to purported markets for gas mineral rights, operating rights and gas gathering sources. These lawsuits seek in aggregate compensatory, consequential, treble, and punitive damages, restitution and disgorgement of profits, declaratory and injunctive relief regarding our royalty payment practices, pre-and post-judgment interest, and attorney’s fees and costs. On December 20, 2017, we reached a tentative settlement to resolve substantially all Pennsylvania civil royalty cases for approximately $30 million.

We are also defending lawsuits alleging various violations of the Sherman Antitrust Act and state antitrust laws. In 2016, putative class action lawsuits were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma and in Oklahoma state courts, and an individual lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court of Kansas, in each case against us and other defendants. The lawsuits generally allege that, since 2007 and continuing through April 2013, the defendants conspired to rig bids and depress the market for the purchases of oil and natural gas leasehold interests and properties in the Anadarko Basin containing producing oil and natural gas wells. The lawsuits seek damages, attorney’s fees, costs and interest, as well as enjoinment from adopting practices or plans that would restrain competition in a similar manner as alleged in the lawsuits.

Environmental Proceedings

Our subsidiary Chesapeake Appalachia, LLC (CALLC) is engaged in discussions with the EPA, the USACE and the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP) regarding potential violations of the permitting requirements of the federal CWA, the Pennsylvania Clean Streams Law and the Pennsylvania Dam Safety and Encroachments Act in connection with the placement of dredge and fill material during construction of certain sites in Pennsylvania. CALLC identified the potential violations in connection with an internal review of its facilities siting and construction processes and voluntarily reported them to the regulatory agencies. Resolution of the matter may result in monetary sanctions of more than $100,000.

We are also in discussions with PADEP regarding gas migration in the vicinity of certain of our wells in Bradford County, Pennsylvania. We believe we are close to identifying agreed-upon steps to resolve PADEP’s concerns regarding the issue. In addition to these steps, we anticipate making a donation of $300,000 to the PADEP’s well plugging fund.

On December 27, 2016, we received a Finding of Violation from the EPA alleging violations of the CAA at a number of locations in Ohio. We have exchanged information with the EPA and are engaged in discussions aimed at resolving the allegations. Resolution of the matter may result in monetary sanctions of more than $100,000.

We are named as a defendant in numerous lawsuits and putative class actions in Oklahoma alleging that we and other companies have engaged in activities that have caused earthquakes. These lawsuits seek compensation for injury to real and personal property, diminution of property value, economic losses due to business interruption, interference with the use and enjoyment of property, annoyance and inconvenience, personal injury and emotional distress. In addition, they seek the reimbursement of insurance premiums and the award of punitive damages, attorneys’ fees, costs, expenses and interest.