Item 3. Legal Proceedings
10K characters. Original on sec.gov · Markdown
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 II of this report for information regarding our estimation and provision for potential losses related to litigation and regulatory proceedings.
Business Operations. We are involved in various 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 royalty obligations and have 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 and August 9, 2018, we reached tentative settlements to resolve substantially all Pennsylvania civil royalty cases for a total of approximately $35 million.
We also previously disclosed 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. On April 12, 2018, we reached a tentative settlement to resolve substantially all Oklahoma civil class action antitrust cases for an insignificant amount. The final fairness hearing is set for April 25, 2019.
On July 28, 2017, OOGC America LLC (OOGC) filed a demand for arbitration with the American Arbitration Association against Chesapeake Exploration, L.L.C., our wholly owned subsidiary, in connection with OOGC’s purchase of certain oil and gas leases and other assets pursuant to a Purchase and Sale Agreement entered into on October 10, 2010. In connection with the sale, we also entered into a Development Agreement with OOGC, dated November 15, 2010 (the “Development Agreement”), which governs each of our rights and obligations with respect to the sale, including the transportation and marketing of oil and gas. OOGC’s breach of contract, breach of agency and fiduciary duties and other claims generally alleged, among other things, that we subjected OOGC to excessive rates for gathering and other services provided for under the Development Agreement and interfered with OOGC’s right to audit the documents that supported those rates. On November 13, 2018, a unanimous panel denied every claim asserted by OOGC other than OOGC being entitled to a declaration clarifying its audit rights.
On July 24, 2018, Healthcare of Ontario Pension Plan (HOOPP) filed a demand for arbitration with the American Arbitration Association regarding HOOPP’s purchase of our interest in Chaparral Energy, Inc. stock for $215 million on January 5, 2014. HOOPP claims that we engaged in material misrepresentations and fraud, and that we violated the Exchange Act and Oklahoma Uniform Securities Act. HOOPP seeks either rescission or $215 million in monetary damages, and in either case, interest, attorney’s fees, disgorgement and punitive damages. We intend to vigorously defend these claims.
In February 2019, a putative class action lawsuit in the District Court of Dallas County, Texas was filed against FTS International, Inc. (“FTSI”), certain investment banks, FTSI’s directors including certain of our officers and certain shareholders of FTSI including us. The lawsuit alleges various violations of Sections 11 (with respect to certain of our officers in their capacities as directors of FTSI) and 15 (with respect to such officers and us) of the Securities Act of 1933 in connection with public disclosure made during the initial public offering of FTSI. The suit seeks damages in excess of $1,000,000 and attorneys’ fees and other expenses. We intend to vigorously defend these claims.
Environmental Proceedings
Our subsidiary Chesapeake Appalachia, LLC (CALLC) is engaged in discussions with the EPA, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP) regarding potential violations of the permitting requirements of the federal Clean Water Act (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.
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 received another Finding of Violation from EPA on December 20, 2018 alleging violations of the CAA and violations of the Ohio State Implementation Plan at a number of our Ohio facilities. We have begun discussions with EPA aimed at resolving the allegations. Resolution of this matter may result in monetary sanctions of more than $100,000.
We are named as a defendant in numerous lawsuits 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.
Previous: Item 2. Properties · Next: Item 4. Mine Safety Disclosures