Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on May 11, 2016 at 14:15

Possibly.  However, banks have been most accommodating to the over leveraged E&P sector for far longer than I imagined they would and continue to provide financing and cooperate with "packaged" bankruptcies. 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by kittycatmama on May 16, 2016 at 5:15

So the attorneys/royalty owners  who are eagerly promoting lawsuits and class action cases against CHK win the awards that will be work NOTHING if  CHK files BK. If there was ever a time not to file a suit against an energy company it is now. Most are just trying to stay solvent and any bump in their finances will throw them to BK.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on May 16, 2016 at 6:04

He who pays the piper calls the tune.  Plaintiffs have the choice:  to settle, if an offer is tendered, or go to trial and a verdict.  When its a bird in the hand or two in the bush most plaintiffs take the bird in hand.  Altruism often fails in the face of uncertain outcome.  And any experienced trial lawyer will tell their clients there is no such thing as a sure thing in any court case.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Kevin Dentzer on May 18, 2016 at 3:49

Important to remember and take into consideration.  Chesapeake isn't a company that can write off billions of dollars in settlements like a BP.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on May 18, 2016 at 4:07

CHK management is responsible for their situation.  Yes, its been exacerbated by falling commodity prices but CHK had a heavy hand in causing the natural gas glut.  Over aggressive land programs demand large capital expenditures to hold development rights.  Makes it hard to slow drilling when the only thing keeping the company afloat is cash flow.  Either plaintiffs have a legally persuasive cause of action, or they don't.  The courts will decide.  If CHK does not do so first by settlement or bankruptcy.  Those who have held their stock this far down the rabbit hole have little room to make a case for CHK remaining solvent.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by William C. Morrison on May 25, 2016 at 2:21

In the Fort Worth Star Telegram the head line read, DFW  settles with Chesapeake for $52 million dollars for not properly paying royalties.  And again today, Fort Worth City Council agrees to $15 million payment in settlement of improperly paying royalties.  That is a $67 million dollar hit from just one county, Tarrant County, in Texas.  I do not think Chesapeake is gonna have a dime left to go broke on. That happened in two days.  I think the roof is caving in on them.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on May 25, 2016 at 2:30

CHK is not responsible for the entire amount.  Yes, it's still a lot of money but it represents a drop in the bucket compared to what it would cost if CHK didn't settle and the court handed down a verdict that set a legal precedent.

http://www.gohaynesvilleshale.com/forum/topics/chk-and-total-agree-...

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Paul Butler on May 25, 2016 at 3:55

You got that right.

If anyone has to worry about a run away jury, it's folks like CHK.

Hulk Hogan won $140 million for damage to his "reputation."

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on May 25, 2016 at 4:01

A properly structured verdict finding improper royalty deductions by CHK could well set a legal precedent that would be a huge blow to the entire O&G industry.  IMO any E&P company would go bankrupt before they would let that happen.  What's at stake goes far beyond CHK.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Jan Holland on May 25, 2016 at 4:31

Was this a mediation settlement or a verdict?

“After three weeks of good faith mediation led by a former federal judge, the case has been resolved to our satisfaction, though it is subject to our clients’ written approval,” said George Parker Young, a partner at Circelli, Walter, & Young in Fort Worth who represents many of the plaintiffs. “We are pleased that we have achieved a mutually acceptable global settlement and greatly appreciate the constructive approach taken by Chesapeake’s current leadership to resolve this matter.”

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• Next ›
• Page