Item 1. Legal Proceedings
Item 1. Legal Proceedings
On July 1, 2020, the U.S. Department of Justice, on behalf of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (the “EPA”), and the State of Colorado commenced an enforcement action in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado against Kerr - McGee Gathering LLC (“KMG”), a wholly owned subsidiary of WES, for alleged non - compliance with the leak detection and repair requirements of the federal Clean Air Act (“LDAR requirements”) at its Fort Lupton facility in the DJ Basin complex. KMG previously had been in negotiations with the EPA and the State of Colorado to resolve the alleged non - compliance at the Fort Lupton facility. Per the complaint, plaintiffs pray for injunctive relief, remedial action, and civil penalties. Management cannot reasonably estimate the outcome of this action at this time.
On August 12, 2019, Sanchez Energy Corporation and certain of its affiliated companies (collectively, “Sanchez”) filed a voluntary petition for relief under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Texas. While Sanchez holds a working interest in the acreage dedicated to our Springfield system, Sanchez also was the upstream operator for substantially all of the natural gas, crude oil, and NGLs that the Springfield system gathers and that WES processes in the Eagle Ford Shale Play. On April 29, 2020, we received notice that Sanchez filed a motion to reject a number of midstream and downstream agreements with commercial counterparties, including Sanchez’s Springfield gathering agreements and agreements obligating Sanchez to deliver the gas volumes gathered by the Springfield system to our Brasada processing plant. We objected to Sanchez’s rejection and instituted an adversary proceeding regarding such rejection. On May 6, 2021, the Bankruptcy Court issued an opinion determining, among other things, that Sanchez’s Springfield gathering agreements were rejected, but that such agreements contain covenants running with the land that survive rejection, thus preserving the acreage dedication to our Springfield system. We intend to continue defending our contractual rights in the bankruptcy proceeding and any other appropriate venue.
On May 15, 2020, Gavilan Resources LLC (“Gavilan”), an entity that owns a 25% working interest in the acreage where the Springfield gathering system and Brasada processing plant are located, also filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection. As a part of this bankruptcy, Mesquite Energy, Inc. (the successor to Sanchez) (“Mesquite”) purchased Gavilan’s assets at auction. Gavilan did not assume and assign its agreements with Springfield as part of its asset sale. Instead, the assets sold to Mesquite remain subject to any covenants, servitudes, or similar agreements that could be equitable servitudes or covenants running with the land, pending a further order of the bankruptcy court.
The parties to the Sanchez and Gavilan proceedings discussed above are currently working toward a comprehensive legal and commercial settlement of the matters in dispute. Nevertheless, we cannot make any assurances regarding the ultimate outcome of these negotiations or the Sanchez and Gavilan proceedings themselves, and any resulting impact on WES due to the uncertainties associated with the ongoing process.
On October 29, 2020, WGR Operating, LP (“WGR”), on behalf of itself and derivatively on behalf of Mont Belvieu JV, filed suit against Enterprise Products Operating, LLC (“Enterprise”) and Mont Belvieu JV (as a nominal defendant) in the District Court of Harris County, Texas. Our lawsuit seeks a declaratory judgment regarding proper revenue allocation as set forth in the Operating Agreement between Mont Belvieu JV (of which WGR is a 25% owner) and Enterprise (the “Operating Agreement”) related to fractionation trains at the Mont Belvieu complex in Chambers County, Texas. Specifically, the Operating Agreement sets forth a revenue allocation structure, whereby revenue would be allocated to the various fracs at the Mont Belvieu complex in sequential order, with Fracs VII and VIII (which are owned by Mont Belvieu JV) following Fracs I through VI, but preceding any “Later Frac Facilities.” Subsequent to the construction of Fracs VII and VIII, Enterprise built Fracs IX, X, and XI, which it wholly owns, and has signaled its intention to treat such subsequent fracs as outside the Mont Belvieu revenue allocation. We do not believe Enterprise’s attempt to bypass the agreed - to revenue allocation is proper under the parties’ agreements and now seek judicial determination. We currently sue only for declaratory judgment to avoid potential future damages. We cannot make any assurances regarding the ultimate outcome of this proceeding and its resulting impact on WGR or WES.
Except as discussed above, we are not a party to any legal, regulatory, or administrative proceedings other than proceedings arising in the ordinary course of business. Management believes that there are no such proceedings for which a final disposition could have a material adverse effect on results of operations, cash flows, or financial condition, or for which disclosure is otherwise required by Item 103 of Regulation S - K.
67
Table of Contents
Text extracted from the filing as submitted to EDGAR. Formatting, tables and exhibits are simplified for reading; the original document is authoritative for anything you rely on.