Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Phillip Briggs on July 13, 2012 at 5:17

Question is... will they actually pay, or will it be a 'judgment'??? or drag it through the courts for years???

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Ben Elmore on July 13, 2012 at 6:19

CHK is appealing.  This won't be over for some time.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Krkyoldhag on July 14, 2012 at 2:57

All this millions and billions...hard to get it in my mind the actual impact of these amounts. But here my question. Would paying the 100 million impact CHK's stock/bottom line by much or anything?

Were these leases that were to expire in 2 years as some they did in that period of $20,000 an acre plus deals?

Even if they don't have to pay the judgement for years, the company has to show that amount (and legal fees) as a set back.

But again, is 100 mil all that much to CHK?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Henry on July 14, 2012 at 7:18

CHK has to fight this tooth and nail because of the number of deals they walked out on in 2008.  If the courts start to uphold these contracts, then CHK might see the floodgates open on a gazillion more civil suits.  Also, if enough of these civil suits start to arise, based on the success of this case and the other $16M case in Texas, then it starts to look like a pattern of bad behavior.  At some point, if the pattern is big enough, it starts to look like fraud, and CHK sure doesn't need the government going after them on this.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Hopeful About Natural Gas on July 14, 2012 at 9:10

While CHK is the 800 pound gorilla, what about other companies who were buying leases at the same time?  Seems like the same rulings would apply to others???

This could get HUGE down the road - even if the era of $20,000 an acre leases was only a month long (maybe less)

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Henry on July 14, 2012 at 12:59

HANG,

I think the vast majority of broken contracts in 2008 were with CHK.  You don't hear much complaining about the other companies not honoring their leasing commitments.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by GoshDarn on July 14, 2012 at 19:05

HANG:

From what I remember about 2008 -- the high-dollar leasing lasted much, much longer than a month.

Yep, way longer, to be sure.

Plus, I also remember when so many so-called insiders on GHS where spinning the b.s. that the big-money leasing was dead and gone forever (never to return) -- when they were posting such b.s. roughly in the final months of 2008 and into 2009.

But, y'know, guess what?

Not true.  In other words, just because a landman or an O&G wonk in Houston or some other such someone comes on here and posts whatever, that doesn't mean that they truly know what they're talking about (across such a large swath of parishes) since there are (and were) so many hungry operators and so many deals (going down).  In other words, some insiders might have thought that they knew what was transpiring and thus were honestly boasting about the death of large bonuses from their own company's perspective or from the scuttlebutt that they were being "fed" from the limited friends that they were in contact with; but the actual truth wasn't being discussed openly on GHS.

It was kinda hush-hush.

Indeed, the frothy bonuses and the 1/4 royalty and the protective sweet clauses, e.g., a solid "free royalty clause in Exhibit A" (not like CHK's crooked lease shenanigans) -- actually continued into several months of 2009 (at least) that I myself was aware of.

Yep, certain confidentially agreements and/or closed-mouthed landowners in NW LA. -- well, they knew the truth; and so the bad-mouthing O&G b.s.-ers (hoping to drive the lease values down and keep 'em down) were simply flat out wrong.

(In other words, they were doing their jobs, doing what was best for their own pocketbooks and doing what was best for the profits of the operator that they were working for.) 

Ergo, the lesson to be learned from 2008/2009 -- is to always be skeptical enough to question the source of whatever intel/info (i.e., to always ponder what motivates whatever source and ask yourself the "why" of how such-and-such a source knows what they claim that they know and how that so-called in-the-know source is actually booking their income).

Yep, if you follow the money, you might find that what some folks want you to believe . . . may not at all be the "complete and honest" truth.

GD

 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by adubu on July 14, 2012 at 11:29

They have no choice but to Appeal it because if they pay a settlement on this case now  then the Gates will  open and all the Pigs you might say will run to their trough for more. The mineral owner who had a leased that was dropped and not honored by payment will one day get some money and the lawyers both Plainiff and Defense will do well and the best--- but they will earn their money on this one and if minerals owner did not use attorney that would get Zero so some % on dollar will be better than 0%. So No one should complain about the attorney payment. Of course the Plainiff attorney is one at greatest risk if he does not win neither he nor land owner will get any thing unless the mineral owner funded the plainiff lawyer then mineral owner loses if doesnot win

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Krkyoldhag on July 15, 2012 at 1:06

My action would be to get a full release from CHK and move on.   I would want to be sure I was clear of them and that I could lease my property to another company with no chance of CHK having a claim to my royalties.

I had silicon breast implants for reconstruction from CA.  I refused to enter into the lawsuit against Dow.  I wanted those implants. I was young wife.  Those implants made life good for me.   I would have wanted them had I known of the complications.  So, I refused to be a party to the suits.  People still think I got a big hunk of cash out of Dow.  Nope. 

Sometimes you just have to stand back and think.  And move on.   Take responsibility for your actions.  The deal sounded too good to be true..  ever heard that before?

But guess that's just me.  Old fashioned?  Stupid?  But I sure don't want to be out there waiting for years for a check that will maybe never come.   And who wants to mess with lawsuits all those years?  Yes the attorneys will earn their money on this one.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by adubu on July 16, 2012 at 6:01

Krkyoldhag--- BTW the claim that silicon implants cause a autoimmune scleroderma disorder has been proven to be "Junk Science" and silicon breast implants have been back on the market in use for several years. A great quote by I believe Milton Friedman " A Fact without a theory is like a boat without a rudder or ship without a sail. A Fact without a theory is sad as sad can be. But one thing is worse in this universe, it's a theory....without a Fact. "= "Junk science!!!

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Krkyoldhag on July 16, 2012 at 7:24

But no matter the truth of that issue with silicon...it bankrupted a company.

Again, I never entered into the fray, I was happy to have had the implants.   I also survived ...and that's a big one.

I was not aware they were back in use...I would be the firstr to encourage breast cancer patients to get the reconstruction. 

But mine were replaced with saline ..back when ..

I always thought the brutal mammograms were the reason mine ruptured in the first place.

Remember...I got mine in 1978 .. a very long time ago.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by adubu on July 16, 2012 at 15:46

Krkoldhag--- yep the mammogram may have had effect on the implant rupture-- but today the silicon implants are made of a solid jel type  implant ( More natural feel that water bag of saline) not in liquid sack so no chance of rupture and spill. Sorry you had to lose the silicon and go to saline.BTW old fasion can be smart I disagree with it being stupid

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• Next ›
• Page