Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.

Help support the publication of case reports on MoreLaw

Date: 10-19-2015

Case Style: Roger M. Wheeler, Jr. v. Crest Resources, Inc.

Case Number: CJ-2010-6340

Judge: Jefferson D. Sellers

Court: District Court, Tulsa County, Oklahoma

Plaintiff's Attorney: John Carwile and James Edmonds

Defendant's Attorney: David Cordell, Richard Funk and Jed Isball for Crest Resources, Inc.

Gregory McKenie for Chesapeake Exploration, L.L.C.

Description: Tulsa, OK - Roger M. Wheeler, Jr., Singer Bros., L.L.C., HW Allen Co., Holarud 792, L.L.C., Lafapar Energy, LLC, Wheeler Phoenix, Inc. sued Crest Resources, Inc., Glenn Hudgens, Crest Resources 2010, L.L.C and Crest Energy, Ltd. on breach of fiduciary duty, constructive fraud and fraud and deceit theories.

1. Plaintiff Roger M. Wheeler, Jr. (“Wheeler”), is an individual who resides in Tulsa County, Oklahoma.
2. Plaintiff Singer Bros., LLC (“Singer Bros.”), is an Oklahoma limited liability company with its principal place of business in Tulsa County, Oklahoma.
3. Plaintiff H W Allen Co., LLC (“H W Mien”) is an Oklahoma limited liability company with its principal place of business in Tulsa County, Oklahoma.
4. Plaintiff Langholz Energy, LLC (“Langholz Energy”) is an Oklahoma limited liability company with its principai place of business in Tulsa County, Oklahoma.
5. Plaintiff Holarud 792, LLC (“Holarud”) is an Oklahoma limited liability company with its principal place of business in Tulsa County, Oklahoma.
6. Plaintiff Lafapar Energy, LLC (“Lafapar”) is an Oklahoma limited liability company with its principal place of business in Tulsa County, Oklahoma.
7. Plaintiff Wheeler Phoenix, Inc. (“Wheeler Phoenix”) is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in Tulsa County, Oklahoma.
8. Defendant Glenn Hudgens (“Hudgens”) is an individual residing in Tulsa County, Oklahoma.
9. Defendant Crest Resources, Inc. (“Crest Resources”), is a corporation organized under the laws of the State of Oklahoma, with its principal place of business in Tulsa County, Oklahoma. At all relevant times Hudgens has been the owner and the person in control of the operations, business and activities of Crest Resources.
10. Defendant Crest Resources 2010 LLC (“Crest 2010”), is an Oklahoma limited liability company with its principal place ofbusiness in Tulsa County, Oklahoma. Upon information and belief at aH relevant times Hudgens has been the person in control of the operations, business and activities of Crest 2010.
11. Defendant Crest Energy, Ltd. (“Crest Energy”) is an Oklahoma corporation with its principal place of business in Tulsa County, Oklahoma. Upon information and belief at all relevant times Hudgens has been the person in control of the operations, business and activities of Crest Energy.
12. Defendant Glenn Hudgens controls Crest Resources, Crest 2010 and Crest Energy to such an extent that Crest Resources, Crest 2010 and Crest Energy are merely corporate shams and the alter egos of Glenn Hudgens. By virtue of his overwhelming control over Crest Resources, Crest 2010 and Crest Energy, and his use of these entities to mislead, deceive and defraud the Plaintiffs, the corporate and!or entity veils of Crest Resources, Crest 2010 and Crest Energy should be pierced and disregarded for the purposes of this litigation. Glenn Hudgens should be held personally liable not only for the acts and omissions of Crest Resources, Crest 2010 and Crest Energy, but also for all amounts Crest Resources, Crest 2010 and Crest Energy are found to owe to the Plaintiffs as a result of any judgment in this litigation.
13. Among other things, this is an action to enforce rights for causes of action which accrued or occurred or arose, in whole or in part, in Tulsa County, Oklahoma, to enforce contracts which were entered into in Tulsa County, Oklahoma, and for damages for torts which occurred, in whole or in part, in Tulsa County, Oklahoma. Defendants Hudgens, Crest Resources, Crest 2010 and Crest Energy reside in Tulsa County and are properly subject to service of process in Tulsa County, Oklahoma. By virtue of the foregoing, this Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter
and the parties to this action and pursuant to 12 OkIa. Stat. § 133, 134 and 139, venue is proper in this Court.
14. Plaintiffs Wheeler, Singer Bros., H W Allen, Langholz Energy, Lafapar, Holarud 792 and Wheeler Phoenix, (collectively hereinafter at times referred to as “Plaintiffs”), have been among the non-operating working interest owners in various oil and gas properties located in the Mills Ranch Prospect, Wheeler County, Texas.
15. In January and March of 1997, Plaintiffs, Wheeler, Singer Bros., H W Allen, Langholz Energy, Holarud 792 and Wheeler Phoenix, or their respective predecessors, entered into similar Exploration/Development Agreements (“EDAs”) with Crest Resources concerning the Mills Ranch Prospect, as defined in the EDAs.
16. The EDAs were prepared by Crest Resources. Robert L. Bird, co-owner of Crest Resources at the time the EDAs were signed, was involved in the development, drafting and refining of the EDAs for Crest Resources. Mr. Bird signed the EDAs for the Mills Ranch Prospect on behalf of Crest Resources. Mr. Bird and Hudgens later split the assets of Crest Resources with Mr. Bird and Defendant Hudgens with each taking an undivided fifty percent ownership of the assets and property of Crest Resources.
17. The EDAs incorporate by reference a Farmout Agreement between Chevron U.S.A. Production Company (“Chevron”), and Crest Resources dated October 1, 1996 (“Farmout Agreement”) and a 1996 Joint Operating Agreement (the “1996 JOA”).
18. The Chevron Farmout Agreement and the 1996 JOA are expressly referenced and incorporated into the EDAs for all purposes.
19. On or about February 26, 1998, but unbeknownst to Plaintiffs, Defendant Crest Resources, purportedly acting on behalf of itself and Plaintiffs Wheeler, Singer Bros., H W Allen, Langholz Energy, Holarud 792 and Wheeler Phoenix, entered into an agreement with Chevron to amend the Farmout Agreement to incorporate by reference the terms of a March 31, 1973 Joint Operating Agreement (“1973 JOA”), in place of the 1996 JOA.
20. To the extent Glenn Hudgens and/or Crest Resources amended the Chevron Farmout Agreement so as to be binding on Plaintiffs Wheeler, Singer Bros., H W Allen, Langholz Energy, Holarud 792 and Wheeler Phoenix, then Defendants Hudgens and Crest Resources did so as ajointventurer and fiduciary of the Plaintiffs.
21. The EDAs are comprised of all exhibits referenced and incorporated therein and attached thereto, and not just the first six pages titled “Mills Ranch Prospect Daybeny Unit #4.”
22. The EDAs provide for and contemplate ajoint venture for the development of oil and gas wells within the prospect. Under the EDAs, Plaintiffs and Crest Resources agreed to share profits and losses resulting from the development of the Mills Ranch Prospect.
23. Under the EDAs, each Plaintiffs Wheeler, Singer Bros., H W Allen, Langholz Energy,
Holarud 792 and Wheeler Phoenix are deemed to be Crest Resource’s “Partner” and a “Prospect
Partner” for the purposes of exploration and development of the subject acreage within the Mills
Ranch Prospect.
24. The EDAs create ajoint venture for purposes of earning working interests in oil and gas leases and for developing producing wells in which the parties to the EDAs may earn vested leasehold rights by way of recorded assignments and conveyances, as well as to share in the profits from successful development of the subject acreage.
25. The EDAs contain an Area of Mutual Interest (“AMI”), The AMI requires any party to the EDAs. including Crest Resources, to immediately notif’ other parties to the EDAs if one of the parties acquires an oil or gas interest within the AMI. Each party to the EDAs has the right and option to purchase an interest in new acreage.
26. The AMI provision of the EDAs covered the following properties:
Section 1, Block A-21, BBB& C RR Co Survey, Wheeler County, Texas (“Section 1”)
Section 44, Block A-7 I-I&GN RR Co Survey, Wheeler County, Texas (“Section 44”)
Section 45, Block A-7, H&GN RR Co., Survey, Wheeler County, Texas (“Section 45”)
Section 51, Block A-i, H&GN RB. Co., Survey, Wheeler County, Texas (“Section 51”)
27. On or about May 7, 1998, the parties amended the EDAs to expand the AMI to include:
Section 36, Block BA-7 H&GN Survey (“Section 36”)
Section 58, Block A-7 H&GN Survey (“Section 58”)
Section 21, Block B-l, J.M. Lindsey Survey, Wheeler County, Texas (“Section 21”).
28. When the EDAs were executed and for a significant period of time thereafter, Crest Resources was not the operator and was not intended to be at the time the EDAs were executed to act as operator. Instead, Crest Resources was ajoint-venturer or partner which needed the financial resources of the Plaintiffs and other “Partners” to invest and develop oil and gas properties for the mutual and joint benefit of the EDA “Partners.”
29. Under the EDAs, the Chevron Farmout and the Joint Operating Agreements, upon completion of the test well as a commercial producer, each “Partner” acquires an interest in the initial test well and the unit acreage held by such test well, designated as a unit. After a producing well has been completed in a unit covered by the Chevron Farmout Agreement, Plaintiffs earned leasehold rights and working interests in those units. Subsequent operations in those units in which Plaintiffs have earned vested working interests and leasehold rights are governed by the applicable
JOA.
30. The EDAs incorporate third-party agreements with Chevron. The EDAs provide that the working interests of the “Partners” will be earned and vested by satisf’ing the terms and conditions of the Chevron Farmout Agreement and the unit operating agreement.
31. The EDAs contain an assignment provision. The assignment provision requires Crest Resources to convey and assign to the EDA “Partner” the subject unit acreage upon completion of a well as a commercial producer.
32. Upon completion of a commercially productive well in a new section or unit, the EDAs require Crest Resources to convey and assign the agreed upon leasehold rights and working interests in the unit to the “Partner.”
33. There are no provisions in the EDAs in which Plaintiffs are required, under any circumstances, to assign to Crest Resources working interests and leasehold interests previously earned by Plaintiffs by virtue of their participation in a commercially productive well in a unit.
34. At the time the EDAs were executed, neither the Defendants nor the Plaintiffs had participated in a horizontal well. At the time the EDAs were executed, the technology and economics did not exist to make it practical and economic for parties such as Defendants and Plaintiffs to drill horizontal wells.
35. Following the execution of the EDAs, Crest Resources and Glenn Hudgens maintained and occupied a position of special trust and confidence in their dealings with Plaintiffs relating to the Mills Ranch Prospect. The relationship between Plaintiffs, Crest Resources and Glenn Hudgens constituted a fiduciary relationship. During the course of the Plaintiffs’ relationship with Hudgens and Crest Resources, Plaintiffs reposed a special confidence in Hudgens and Crest Resources. Hudgens and Crest Resources encouraged Plaintiffs to repose special trust and confidence in them. Hudgens and Crest Resources advised Plaintiffs and made recommendations to the Plaintiffs regarding well proposals, convened partners meetings where discussions and votes were had, spoke for Plaintiffs, and took actions on behalf of the Plaintiffs on numerous occasions. By virtue of this fiduciary relationship, Hudgens and Crest Resources owe, have owed, and continue to owe fiduciary duties and obligations to Plaintiffs, including the duties to conduct the affairs of the joint venture in the Mills Ranch Prospect according to the standards of a fiduciary, as well as a duty of truthfulness, a duty not to mislead, a duty not to speak in half-truths, a duty to correct misleading statements, a duty to disclose and a duty to refrain from improper self-dealing.
36. In their position of special trust and confidence as a fiduciary of the Plaintiffs, Defendants Hudgens and Crest Resources treated and referred to the Plaintiffs as Crest’s “internal investors.” Defendant Hudgens repeatedly and often referred to the Plaintiffs as the “Crest investors,”“internals,”“internal partners,”“Crest Group,” and “Crest investor group” among other and similar names descriptive of the fiduciary relationship between Plaintiffs, Hudgens and Crest Resources.
37. Plaintiffs Wheeler, Singer Bros., H W Allen, Langholz Energy, Holarud 792 and Wheeler Phoenix had previously participated in the drilling and completion of commercially productive wells in the Coltharp and Buckingham units in the Mills Ranch Prospect in Wheeler County, Texas.
38. Crest Resources issued an assignments to Plaintiffs Wheeler, Singer Bros., H W Allen Co., Langholz Energy, Holarud 792 and Wheeler Phoenix, for each Plaintiffs’ previously agreed upon share or percentage of the working interests in each of the units of the Mills Ranch Prospect, including the Coltharp unit.
39. With the exception of the Buckingham unit comprised of Sections 21 and 58, the Plaintiffs earned vested leasehold rights in all other AMI sections and units by participating in the successful commercial completion of the first test wells located thereon. Each of the Plaintiffs elected in and did purchase additional acreage in Sections 21 and 58, which became known as the as the Buckingham unit. Upon the purchase of the leasehold interests, Plaintiffs received Assignments, which were filed of record, of the leasehold interests for each of the Plaintiffs’ previously agreed upon share or percentage of the working interests in the acreage comprising the Buckingham unit.
40. The acreage for the Buckingham unit was purchased directly by the Plaintiffs outside of the Chevron Farmout Agreement and is not subject to the Subsequent Wells provision of the EDAs.
41. The assignments executed by Crest Resources in favor of the Plaintiffs are unconditional and without reservation or right of reverter.
42. The assignments executed by Crest Resources in favor of the Plaintiffs are for the unit acreage and not merely for a completed welibore. These recorded assignments do not reference the EDA nor do they include any language of reversion.
43. Tn December of 2005, Glenn Hudgens convinced the Plaintiffs tojoin Crest Resources and Crest Energy in a lawsuit against Bracken Operating, LLC, (“Bracken lawsuit”), in which Crest Resources and Crest Energy alleged, acknowledged and admitted that the parties to the EDAs formed a joint venture and, as a result, were fiduciaries of each other.
44. Crest Resources and Crest Energy admitted that as fiduciaries, they were precluded from appropriating a venture opportunity for their own benefit or from failing to honor covenants of good faith and fair dealing.
45. Prior to 2010, the Partners to the EDAs, including Crest Resources and Crest Energy, operated primarily on a consensus basis based upon discussions held in numerous partner meetings.
46. In proving up and developing the Mills Ranch Prospect over the course of the more than a decade, the Plaintiffs had invested in and developed approximately eighteen prior wells in the Mills Ranch Prospect, including producing wells in each of the units in the Mills Ranch Prospect.
47. In the first six months of 2010 and continuing thereafter, Defendants engaged in a plan and scheme to replace their “Partners” under the Mills Ranch EDAs with institutional investors. Defendants did not disclose to the Plaintiffs that, in an effort to obtain financing, Defendants had purported to and agreed to pledge, assign and convey to a third-party financier interests in the Coltharp and Buckingham units derived, in whole or in part, from working interests owned by Plaintiffs.
48. Defendants’ plan and scheme to wash out their “Partners” under the Mills Ranch
EDAs coincided with the Defendants negotiations with Guggenheim Corporate Funding, LLC and
Guggenheim Partners, LLC, (collectively “Guggenheim”), beginning in February of 2010.
Defendants did not disclose their scheme to replace the EDA partners with Guggenheim financing.
49. Defendants simultaneously engaged in a scheme to defraud, mislead and confuse the Plaintiffs in order to unfairly leverage the Defendants’ position against the Plaintiffs through use of the Guggenheim financing and the Defendants’ wrongful interpretation of the EDA for purposes of seizing the Plaintiffs’ vested working interests in the Coltharp and Buckingham units in the Mills Ranch Prospect without compensation.
50. Under cover letters dated March 30, 2010, Crest Resources proposed drilling the Coltharp 4051(H) in the previously existing Coltharp unit.
51. Prior to March 30, 2010, each of the Plaintiffs had previously participated in the drilling of commercial oil and gas wells in the Coltharp unit, and had thereby earned vested working interests and leasehold interests which were assigned to the Plaintiffs and filed of record.
52. The cover letters containing the well proposal for the Coltharp 4051(H) were modified and tailored by the Defendants specifically for the various groups of recipients.
53. Crest Resources did not send Plaintiffs the same cover letters or well election forms for the Coltharp 405 1(H) as those sent to other non-partner working interest owners.
54. The letters to the Plaintiffs and other members of the internal Crest investors contained an offer to purchase Plaintiffs’“leasehold rights outside of existing wellbores for $t,000 per net acre in Section 51 at a proportionate 79.25% net revenue interest.” The offer to purchase was not contained in the well proposal letters sent to working interest owners outside the internal Crest investors.
55. The well proposal letters sent to other working interest owners contained language regarding the potential of a “farmout.” The reference to “farmout” was deleted from the well proposal letters sent to the Plaintiffs on the Coltharp 4051(H). The well proposal letters sent to the Plaintiffs did not mention or reference the possibility of a farmout.
56. The well proposal letter of March 30, 2010, sent to the Plaintiffs by Crest Resources enclosed an election form drafted by Crest Resources which provided for the following options, in addition to a consent option:
_____ I/We elect to not participate in the proposed Coltharp #4-5 114 well pursuant to the terms of the Joint Operating Agreement, dated March 31, 1973, and will be subject to a 100%/300% non consent penalty.
______ I/We hereby elect to sell our interest at a proportionate 79.25% net revenue interest outside of existing wellbores. Payment will be made within ten (10) days after actual spud of the proposed well.
57. As part of the plan and scheme to defraud, mislead and confuse the Plaintiffs,
Defendants encouraged Plaintiffs to sell their working interests in the Mills Ranch Prospect. Glenn Hudgens encouraged Plaintiffs to consider selling their working interests and leasehold interests, with the hope of convincing the Plaintiffs to sell to the Defendants for less than the true worth of the properties.
58. As part of the plan and scheme to defraud, mislead and confuse the Plaintiffs, Glenn Hudgens led the Plaintiffs to believe Defendants were seriously considering third-party offers to purchase both Defendants’ and Plaintiffs’ interests in the Mills Ranch Prospect, while concealing the Defendants’ scheme to claim Plaintiffs’ had forfeited their leasehold interests in the Coltharp and Buckingham units of the Mills Ranch Prospect.
59. As part of their scheme, Defendants concealed geologic and volumetric information in Defendants’ possession, while, simultaneously, downplaying the value of the Mills Ranch Prospect to the Plaintiffs. Defendants falsely represented to Plaintiffs that they lacked geologic information, which Defendants had, in fact, shared with their institutional lender. Defendants held meetings with Plaintiffs during which Defendants continued to conceal geologic, engineering and
volumetric information in the Defendants’ possession. Defendants never disclosed their scheme to replace the Plaintiffs’ investment capital with the investment capital of institutional investors.
60. In breach of their fiduciary obligations to the Plaintiffs, Defendants concealed the geologic and volumetric information on undeveloped reserves, despite Plaintiffs’ requests for all such information available to the Defendants for purposes of evaluating the value of the Mills Ranch Prospect and the Defendants’ well proposals.
61. On May 4, 2010, Defendants Glenn Hudgens and Crest Resources sent the Plaintiffs a Mills Ranch Crest Group PDP analysis for the express purpose of assisting the Plaintiffs in valuing the assets in the Mills R?nch Prospect. In doing so, Glenn Hudgens and Crest Resources specifically withheld and did not disclose material reserve information in their possession, custody and control, thus providing the Plaintiffs with, at best, half-truths and misleading information. Glenn Hudgens and Crest Resources indicated to Plaintiffs that the PDP information provided to the Plaintiffs was the very same infonnation Defendants were relying upon for Defendants’ valuation of their Mills Ranch interests.
62. Glenn Hudgens and Crest Resources falsely represented to the Plaintiffs that the PDP analysis was the basis for the Defendants’ own internal valuation of the Mills Ranch Prospect. Hudgens and Crest Resources did so despite Plaintiffs’ request for all the geologic and engineering information available to Defendants, thereby materially misleading Plaintiffs regarding the true value of the Mills Ranch Prospect and the geologic, engineering and volumetric information in Defendants’ possession.
63. Both the 1973 and the 1996 JOAs provide that not returning or responding to a well proposal is deemed to be an election to go non-consent under the JOA.
64. Plaintiff Langholz Energy and Plaintiff Holarud timely returned elections for the Coltharp 4051(H).
65. Plaintiff Holarud timely returned a signed election form, electing tojoin the Coltharp
4051(H) with part of its interest and to go non-consent with part of its interest under the terms of the
1973 JOA.
66. Plaintiff Langholz Energy timely returned a signed election form for the Coltharp
405 1(H) and specifically selected the non-consent option offered by the Defendants.
67. Pursuant to both the 1996 JOA and the 1973 JOA, Plaintiffs Singer Bros., Wheeler, H W Allen, and Wheeler Phoenix elected to go non-consent under the 1973 JOA as expressly provided by the Defendants’ March 30, 2010, well proposal.
68. All of the Plaintiffs reasonably relied upon the representations in the Defendants’ March 30, 2010, Well Proposal for the Coltharp 405 1(H) as setting forth the consequences of the non-consent.
69. Glenn Hudgens and Crest Resources were aware they had misled the Plaintiffs regarding Defendants’ knowledge of the reserves and value of the Mills Ranch Prospect, and in particular the Coltharp and Buckingham units. Glenn Hudgens and Crest Resources willfully and intentionally withheld material reserve information to mislead the Plaintiffs regarding the true value of the Mills Ranch Prospect.
70. Defendants Glenn Hudgens and Crest Resources failed to correct the false and misleading impression created by Hudgens and Crest Resources for purposes of persuading the Plaintiffs to undervalue the worth of the Mills Ranch Prospect.
71. Without disclosure to the Plaintiffs, Defendants employed an unreasonable and absurd interpretation of the Mills Ranch EDAs. This wrongfiil interpretation had no precedent in the extensive prior dealings between the Plaintiffs and the Defendants. The interpretation employed by Defendants is directly contrary to the stated and recorded intentions of the co-owner of Crest Resources, Robert Bird, who was primarily responsible for drafting the Mills Ranch EDAs. Robert Bird signed the Mills Ranch EDAs on behalf of Crest Resources.
72. As part of their scheme, Defendants excluded Plaintiffs from notice of filings made with the Texas Railroad Commission, Oil and Gas Division, for spacing and density exceptions under the provisions of the Railroad Commission Statewide Rules 37 and 38. By surreptitiously excluding the Plaintiffs from notice, Defendants prevented hearings in front of the Railroad Commission and denied Plaintiffs notice and an opportunity to object.
73. Defendants improperly failed and refused to provide Plaintiffs with notice of their filings with the Texas Railroad Commission, despite the fact Plaintiffs were the record title owners of the leasehold and working interests and despite the fact no operations had been commenced at the time of the Texas Railroad Commission filings.
74. Although Defendants disclosed that they were proposing horizontal wells, Defendants concealed their scheme to use horizontal drilling as a device to take income due to Plaintiffs in proportion to their working interests, and as a device to take acreage assigned to previous wells within the Coltharp and Buckingham units without compensation. Defendants utilized horizontal wells and a novel and unprecedented interpretation of the EDAs in this matter in the Coltharp and Buckingham units, despite the fact Defendants had never drilled a horizontal well under the EDAs prior to the Coltharp 405 1(U).
75. On or about June 23, 2010, Cordillera Energy Partners (“Cordillera”), made and delivered to Crest Resources for Plaintiffs and certain other Mills Ranch Prospect working interest owners, an offer to acquire their entire interests in the Mills Ranch Prospect. Through their actions, Hudgens and Crest Resources negotiated with Cordillera on behalf of Defendants and Plaintiffs, and in doing so, reinforced their role as fiduciaries to Plaintiffs with respect to the Mills Ranch Prospect.
76. Beginning on or about June 23, 2010, and continuing thereafter, Hudgens and Crest Resources intentionally and wrongfully engaged in a course of conduct designed to obstruct, undermine and thwart Cordillera’s efforts to purchase, among other things, Plaintiffs’ interests. Defendants Hudgens and Crest Resources improperly interfered with and took steps to prevent the Plaintiffs from learning the true value and worth of the Mills Ranch Prospect and to harm Plaintiffs’ rights and opportunities to sell their working interests and leasehold interests for full value. Hudgens and Crest Resources took these actions and eonmitted this interference for improper purposes and reasons, and solely to profit themselves at the expense of the Plaintiffs, in derogation of Plaintiffs’ rights and interests. By way of example, but not limitation, Hudgens and Crest Resources took the following actions to undermine, obstruct and ultimately thwart the Plaintiffs’ desire to sell their leasehold and working interests in the Mills Ranch Prospect:
a, As part of their scheme to take Plaintiffs’ leasehold and working interests without compensation, Hudgens and Crest Resources unreasonably valued the operations at Mills Ranch Prospect so as to prevent a sale by Plaintiffs. Defendants had no intention of selling the Mills Ranch Prospect, operations at the Mills Ranch Prospect or to allow Plaintiffs to sell their interests, as Defendants were planning to take Plaintiffs’ working interests and leasehold interests without compensation and had already pledged those assets to Guggenheim.
b. Hudgens attempted to persuade Plaintiffs and others that Cordillera’ s offer was “too high” and would be reduced during Cordillera’s due diligence, while simultaneously
withholding material information regarding vast reserves in the Mills Ranch Prospect.
c. Hudgens and Crest Resources improperly dragged out the negotiations with Cordillera, deceptively maintaining an appearance of good faith, while simultaneously withholding material infomiation regarding the true worth and value of the Mills Ranch Prospect.
d. Hudgens and Crest Resources improperly concealed an enriched Cordillera offer as well as material details of the ongoing negotiations with Cordillera.
Hudgens’ and Crest Resources’ motives for taking these actions were to lull the Plaintiffs into complacency in furtherance of Defendants’ scheme to take Plaintiffs’ working interests and leasehold interests for themselves and for their own benefits without compensation to the Plaintiffs. As part of this effort, Defendants Hudgens and Crest Resources were motivated by the possibility that if the Cordillera offer was rejected, Hudgens and Crest Resources could obtain Plaintiffs’ interests for themselves at a lower price than that offered by Cordillera.
77. At times, Hudgens and Crest Resources were negotiating with Cordillera on behalf of all the EDA Partners for the sale of Plaintiffs’ recorded interest in the Mills Ranch Prospect, even though Defendants had already pledged the Plaintiffs’ leasehold and working interests in the Coltharp unit to Guggenheim.
78. During a significant period of the time Hudgens and Crest Resources were purportedly negotiating with Cordillera, Defendants were representing to Guggenheim that Defendants owned or expected to own the Plaintiffs’ leasehold and working interests in the Buckingham unit of the Mills Ranch Prospect.
79. During the negotiations with Cordillera, Hudgens and Crest Resources had an absolute, clear conflict of interest between what they were trying to achieve for their own interests, and the duties they owed Plaintiffs under their joint venture and as a fiduciary.
80. On June 28, 2010, without disclosure to Plaintiffs and in furtherance of its scheme to take the Plaintiffs’ working interests in the Mills Ranch Prospect without compensation, Crest Resources executed an assignment of the Mills Ranch assets to Crest Energy.
81. Also on June 28, 2010, without disclosure to Plaintiffs and in furtherance of Defendants’ scheme to take the Plaintiffs’ working interests in the Mills Ranch Prospect without compensation, Crest Energy executed an assignment of Mills Ranch assets to Crest 2010.
82. On or about June 28,2010, without disclosure to Plaintiffs and as part ofDefendants’ scheme to take Plaintiffs’ working interests and leasehold interests without rightful compensation, Crest Resources entered into an Assignment of Prospect Rights for the Mills Ranch Prospect with Crest 2010, Guggenheim Corporate Funding, LLC and Crest Energy. This assignment embraced and encumbered Plaintiffs’ vested interests in the Mills Ranch Prospect.
83. Also on June 28, 2010, and in furtherance of Defendants’ scheme to take the Plaintiffs’ working interests in the Mills Ranch Prospect without compensation, Defendants entered into a Senior Secured Credit Agreement and a Open-End Line of Credit Deed of Trust, Mortgage Indenture, Security Agreement, Financing Statement and Assignment of Production, which included after-acquired property provisions, with Guggenheim. These instruments embraced and encumbered Naintiffs’ vested interests in the Mills Ranch Prospect.
84. Defendants concealed their scheme to use an erroneous interpretation of the EDAs to obtain financing from Guggenheim by pledging Plaintiffs’ leasehold arid working interests and
by conveying an overriding royalty interest and a substantial net profits interest to Guggenheim in exchange for financing needed to drill the horizontal wells. These overriding royalty interests and a net profits interests were carved from Plaintiffs’ vested working interest. Defendants pledged leasehold and working interests which did not belong to Defendants and purported to convey property and interest which did not belong to the Defendants. The very financing Defendants used to drill the wells was obtained by actions which constitute an improper attack upon and slander of Plaintiffs’ title.
85. During July and August of 2010, Glenn Hudgens falsely represented to Cordillera that “Crest will own essentially 100% of the Buckingham 2.”
86. On August 6,2010, prior to the time the Well Proposal for the Buckingham 3021(H) had been issued, Glenn Hudgens falsely represented to Cordillera that “I expect to speak for 3 0-40% of the leasehold in that unit already but own essentially 100% of the #2.” Crest Resources’ own records show that, at the time, Defendants cumulatively owned less than 10% of the Buckingham unit. Glenn Hudgens also falsely represented to Cordillera that the “Coltharp unit doesn’t really count since I own the leasehold.” Glenn Hudgens made these representations without Plaintiffs’ knowledge.
87. On August 11, 2010, Cordillera wrote to the Plaintiffs and advised them that negotiations with Hudgens and Crest Resources had broken down due to Hudgens’ and Crest Resources’ demands. In essence, each time negotiations got close, Hudgens and Crest Resources would change the deal and increase their demands.
88. On August 11,2010, Crest Resources sent a Well Proposal to the Plaintiffs proposing the Buckingham 3021(H). The Buckingham unit acreage had not been earned by virtue of drilling
a commercial well under the EDA. Rather, 100% of the Buckingham unit acreage had been purchased by Plaintiffs.
89. Neither the August 11, 2010, well proposal nor the election form included with the Well Proposal indicated that going non-consent to the Well Proposal for the Buckingham 3021(H) would result in forfeiture or loss of the Plaintiffs’ working interests and leasehold interests in the Buckingham unit.
90. The Well Proposal election forms for the Buckingham 3021(11) provided to the Plaintiffs by Crest Resources are different from the election forms provided to other working interest owners. The election forms provided by Crest Resources to other working interest owners disclosed the consequences for going non-consent, whereas the election form provided to the Plaintiffs were silent on the consequences of non-consent.
91. On August 30, 2010, and in furtherance of the Defendants’ scheme to take the Plaintiffs’ working interests in the Mills Ranch Prospect without compensation, Crest Resources executed an assignment of Mills Ranch assets to Crest Energy.
92. Also on August 30, 2010, and in furtherance of the Defendants’ scheme to wrongfully seize the Plaintiffs’ working interests in the Mills Ranch Prospect without compensation, Crest Energy executed an assignment of Mills Ranch assets to Crest 2010.
93. Plaintiff Holarud timely returned a signed election form, electing to join the Buckinghan 302 1(H) with part of its interest and to go non-consent with part of its interest under the terms of the applicable JOA.
94. Plaintiff Wheeler Phoenix timely returned a signed election form, electing to join the Buckingham 302 1(H) with part of its interest and to go non-consent with part of its interest under
the terms of the applicable JOA. Defendants have ignored Plaintiff Wheeler Phoenix’s valid election and the provisions of the 1973 JOA regarding the timing of notices.
95. At the specific request of Crest Resources and Glenn Hudgens, Plaintiffs Langholz Energy and Lafapar provided Glenn Hudgens and Crest Resources with an oral election to participate in the Buckingham 3021(H) on a date specified by Glenn Hudgens and followed up with written elections the next week as agreed between Robert Langholz, Jr. and Glenn Hudgens.
96. Defendants subsequently refused to accept the timely elections of Wheeler Phoenix, Lafapar and Langholz Energy.
97. On September 24,2010, after weeks of negotiation between the parties and seemingly having agreed to terms for the sale of both Plaintiffs’ and Defendants’ interests to Cordillera, Glenn Hudgens represented to Langholz Energy and Cordillera that Defendants’ lender would not allow the sale of the Mills Ranch Prospect. Glenn Hudgens represented to Cordillera that Plaintiffs had failed to participate in Defendants’ Well Proposals and that Plaintiffs’ non-consents had resulted in a “forfeiture” of interest to the participating parties.
98. Hudgens represented to the Plaintiffs and Cordillera that Guggenheim did not “feel sympathetic to the working interest owner’s failure to elect,” when, in fact, Glenn Hudgens and the Defendants had argued with and put substantial pressure upon Guggenheim’s counsel at Andrews Kurth to approve and accept Defendants’ theory in an effort to persuade Guggenheim to release funding for the Coltharp 405 1(H).
99. On September 28, 2010, Glenn Hudgens represented to Langholz Energy, Wheeler and Cordillera that “Crest’s mezzanine lender has declined to release the Buckingham unit interests.” Glenn Hudgens further represented that Crest Resources had acquired all of the Plaintiffs’ working interests in the Buckingham unit, and that his agreement with Guggenheim required him to offer the interest to Guggenheim, instead of the EDA partners.
100. Guggenheim’s lawyers from the Houston law firm of Andrews Kurth repeatedly advised Defendants and Guggenheim of problems in the Defendants’ construction of the EDAs and Defendants’ scheme to divest the Plaintiffs of their rights in the Coltharp and Buckingham units of the Mills Ranch Prospect. Defendants ignored the advice and concerns of the Andrews Kurth lawyers and pressured the Andrews Kurth lawyers to approve title to drill the Coltharp 4051(H).
101. Defendants failed to timely commence operations on the Coltharp 4051(H), without re-proposing the well, but continued to take the erroneous position Plaintiffs had forfeited their leasehold and working interests in the Coltharp unit of the Mills Ranch Prospect.
102. Unbeknownst to Plaintiffs, and in further breach of their contractual and fiduciary obligations to the Plaintiffs, Defendants rushed additional investment and development in the Coltharp and Buckingham units in the Mills Ranch Prospect and pressured Guggenheim to ignore the advice and concerns of the Andrews Kurth lawyers regarding the lack of merit in the Defendants’ construction of the EDAs and claims of ownership over the Plaintiffs’ working interests in the Coltharp and Buckingham units.
103. On October 6, 2010, Plaintiffs filed this lawsuit asserting claims for declaratory judgment, breach of contract, tortious interference with prospective economic advantage, accounting and injunctive relief Despite the Plaintiffs’ lawsuit and Defendants’ knowledge of the Plaintiffs’ claims, Defendants continued to develop the Coltharp and Buckingham units in an apparent effort to exhaust the oil and gas reserves before resolution of this lawsuit.
104. Defendants, including Crest Resources, Crest 2010 and Crest Energy, breached their contractual and fiduciary obligations to the Plaintiffs by failing to offer additional interests in the Mills Ranch Prospect picked up by the Defendants, including, but not limited to, supplemental interests for the drilling of the Coltharp 4051 (H) weHbore in the approximate amount of 34%, non- consent interests in the Coltharp 4051(11) and approximately 24% in the Buckingham unit. Defendants repeatedly violated the AMI provisions of the EDAs.
105. On January 5 and 6, 2011, and as part of its scheme to take Plaintiffs’ working interests and leasehold interests without rightful compensation, Crest Resources purported to assign and convey its right, title and interest in the Coltharp and Buckingham units to Crest Energy.
106. On May 10, 2011, Crest Resources sent out proposals for a well in the Buckingham unit which Crest Resources designated as the Buckingham 402 1(H). Crest Resources improperly and wrongfully failed to provide Langholz Energy, Lafapar, H W Allen, and Singer Bros. with proposals and elections for the Buckingham 402 1(H). Crest Resources improperly and wrongfully failed to provide Holarud with a well proposal and election for the full amount of its interest.
107. On June 11,2011, and in furtherance ofthe Defendants’ scheme to take the Plaintiffs’ working interests in the Mills Ranch Prospect without compensation, Crest Resources executed an assignment of Mills Ranch assets to Crest Energy.
108. Also on June 11, 2011, and in furtherance of the Defendants’ scheme to take the Plaintiffs’ working interests in the Mills Ranch Prospect without compensation, Crest Energy executed an assignment of Mills Ranch assets to Crest 2010.
109. On July 8,2011, Crest Resources sent out proposals for a well in the Coltharp unit which Crest Resources designated as the Coltharp 505 1(H). Crest Resources improperly and wrongfully failed to provide Langholz Energy with a proposal and election for the Colhtarp 5051(H). Crest Resources improperly and wrongfully failed to provide Holarud with a well proposal and election for the full amount of its interest.
110. On October 10, 2011, Crest Resources sent out proposals for a well in the Buckingham unit which Crest Resources designated as the Keith 4058(1-1). Crest Resources improperly and wrongfully failed to provide Langholz Energy, Lafapar, H W Allen, and Singer Bros. with proposals and elections for the Keith 4058(1-1). Crest Resources improperly and wrongfully failed to provide Holarud with a well proposal and election for the full amount of its interest.
111. On December 1, 2011, Crest Resources sent out proposals for a well in the Buckingham unit which Crest Resources designated as the Buckingham 505 8(H). Crest Resources improperly and wrongfully failed to provide Langholz Energy, Lafapar, H W Allen, and Singer Bros. with proposals and elections for the Buckingham 5058(1-1). Crest Resources improperly and wrongfully failed to provide Holarud with a well proposal and election for the full amount of its interest.
112. On February 9, 2012, Crest Resources sent out proposals for a well in the Buckingham unit which Crest Resources designated as the Buckingham 6058(H). Crest Resources improperly and wrongfully failed to provide Langholz Energy, Lafapar, H W Allen, and Singer Bros. with proposals and elections for the Buckingham 6058(H). Crest Resources improperly and wrongfully failed to provide Roland with a well proposal and election for the full amount of its interest.
113. Defendants have made numerous well proposals in the Coltharp and Buckingham units and completed a number of wells after the filing of this lawsuit, for the purposes of depleting the reserves in the Coltharp and Buckingham units and for the intentional purpose of wrongfully taking and distributing revenue Defendants know to be in dispute. Defendants have developed numerous wells in an effort to leave Plaintiffs without a remedy for the claims asserted in this lawsuit.
1 14. Defendants acted in bad faith in tortious disregard of the Plaintiffs’ rights by proposing new wells in the Coltharp and Buckingham units while ignoring the Plaintiffs’ ownership as reflected in the records in Wheeler County, Texas.
115. Defendants knowingly and intentionally proposed and developed numerous wells in the Coltharp and Buckingham units in the face of the Plaintiffs’ lawsuit and knowing the disputed nature of the working interests involved and wrongfully distributed revenues from the sale of oil and gas for purposes of enriching the Defendants and Defendants’ employees, including, but not limited to, Rock Quinn.
116. The well proposals made by Crest Resources for the Coltharp 405 l(FI) and the Buckingham 3021(H) are defective, even after Defendants’ erroneous construction of the agreements, because they do not comply with the agreements and do not provide all the information required for an effective proposal. Neither the proposal for the Coltharp 4051(H) nor the proposal for the Buckingham 3021(H), specify the spacing unit as required by the EDAs. Because Defendants have taken the novel and previously unprecedented position that the Coltharp 4051(H) and Buckingham 3021(H) stripped all prior wells of the acreage assigned to and held by those wells, failure to specify the spacing unit was a material omission rendering the proposals defective as to the Plaintiffs. Crest Resources exclusion of Plaintiffs from the well permitting process and failure to specify the applicable spacing units extinguishes any EDA consequences Defendants seek to assign to non-election, and is further an act of concealment and fraud designed to further the Defendants’ scheme to take the Plaintiffs’ working interests and leasehold interests in the Coltharp and Buckingham units without compensation.
117. In violation of the Chevron Farmout Agreement, the 1973 JOA and the EDAs, and in derogation of Plaintiffs’ rights, Defendants claim that Plaintiffs have forfeited their working interests and leasehold rights, except for existing wellbores, in the Coltharp and Buckingham units, which include Sections 21, 51 and 58. Defendants misappropriated, converted and wrongfully assumed ownership of Plaintiffs’ working interests in Sections 21, 51, and 58. Defendants have wrongfully taken revenues allocable to and generated by Plaintiffs’ interests in the Coltharp and Buckingham units in Sections 21, 51, and 58. Plaintiffs are entitled to an award of compensatory and punitive damages for the Defendants’ actions.
118. Plaintiffs are entitled to a recognition and affirmation of their leasehold rights in the Coltharp and Buckingham units in Sections 21, 51, and 58. Plaintiffs are entitled to a judicial declaration they did not forfeit, nor were they subject to a compulsory farmout of, any leasehold rights in Sections 21, 51, and 58. Plaintiffs further are entitled to a declaration that Crest and any third parties claiming by or through it, do not own, and are not entitled to exercise any dominion or control over Plaintiffs’ leasehold rights in Sections 21, 51, and 58 or Plaintiffs’ share of revenues allocable thereto. Defendants Crest 2010 and Crest Energy also claim some interests in the Mills Ranch Prospect including in the Coltharp and Buckingham units, and participated in the scheme and plan with Defendants Hudgens and Crest Resources to breach fiduciary duties owed to Plaintiffs, to mislead, confuse and defraud the Plaintiffs and to take Plaintiffs’ working interests and leasehold interests without compensation. To the extent that Crest 2010 or Crest Energy seeks or asserts any interest resulting from or arising from or as a result of or by or through Crest Resources, Plaintiffs are entitled to the relief stated above against Defendants Crest 2010 and Crest Energy. Furthermore, unless this Court enjoins the Defendants’ actions and assumption of ownership over the Plaintiffs’ working interests and leasehold interests, Plaintiffs will be irrevocably harmed.
119. Prior to the Mills Ranch Prospect, all of the Plaintiffs had participated with Crest Resources in numerous oil and gas prospects, but Crest Resources did not serve as operator. In addition, the EDAs for the Mills Ranch Prospect initially designated Bracken Operating, LLC, as the operator for this Prospect. Only after the drilling and completion of approximately eight wells, did Crest Resources become the operator.
120. Beginning in approximately 2001, and at all relevant times thereafter, Crest Resources has served as operator for the Mills Ranch Prospect. The applicable JOA sets forth amounts to be charged as fixed overhead and expenses to be absorbed within this fixed overhead amount. Byway of example, but not limitation, the expenses which are to be included in the fixed overhead of Crest Resources are: “[tjhe salaries, wages and Personal Expenses of Technical Employees, and/or the cost of professional consultant services and contract services of technical personnel directly employed” on the Mills Ranch Prospect.
121. Crest Resources has deliberately and improperly charged expenses to Plaintiffs that were required to be absorbed in the operator’s fixed overhead. Plaintiffs have advised Crest Resources that they objected to these practices and that these practices are a breach of the applicable JOA and fui-ther have demanded that these practices cease. In addition, Plaintiffs have made demand upon Crest Resources for an accounting of all income, expenses and other financial affairs, as well the property of, the joint venture, and the Mills Ranch Prospect, in order to correct and prevent further accounting errors in charging of improper expenses as described above.
122. Crest Resources has refused to change its practices and continued to improperly charge working interest owners, including Plaintiffs, expenses that should be included in fixed overhead. Crest Resources also has claimed that its rights and obligations are not governed by the
JOA.
123. Defendant Crest Resources has performed workover activities on wells producing oil and gas in con-imercial quantities without the unanimous agreement of the parties to the applicable JOA. Crest Resources further has failed to adopt consistent procedures, as required by the applicable JOA, with respect to non-consent interests. In some instances, Crest Resources has conformed to the JOA by offering the consenting parties their prorata share of non-consenting parties’ interests. In other instances Crest Resources simply assigned out the non-consenting interests, without offering the same to the consenting parties. In other instances, Crest Resources has improperly retained the non-consenting parties’ interests for its benefit in contravention of the JOA and its fiduciary duties to Plaintiffs.
124. Plaintiffs are entitled to an accounting and to an award of damages for all amounts Crest Resources has improperly charged out to the Plaintiffs which should have been absorbed by Defendant Crest Resources as overhead.
125. Plaintiffs are further entitled to an accounting and audit of the production from the Buckingham 2021 and Buckingham 3021(H), as Defendants have recently produced documents indicating that Defendants may have transferred production from the Buckingham 2021 to the Buckingham 3021(H) to the ifirther disadvantage of those Plaintiffs who retained their interests in the Buckingham 2021.
COUNT I
(Breach of Fiduciary Duty, Constructive Fraud, Fraud and Deceit)
126. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate the allegations in the paragraphs set forth above.
127. By virtue of EDAs, Defendants’ course of conduct, their course of dealing, the formation of the joint venture, Hudgens’ and Crest Resources’ treatment of the Plaintiffs as the “Crest Group” and “internal Crest investors,” and the other facts alleged showing that a special trust and confidence has been reposed in Defendants Hudgens and Crest Resources, Hudgens and Crest Resources owed each of the Plaintiffs fiduciary duties, akin to those of partners, with respect to all actions undertaken in furtherance of the venture formed under the various EDAs with each of the Plaintiffs.
128. By virtue oftheir actions and conduct, Defendants Hudgens and Crest Resources have breached their fiduciary duties to Plaintiffs. This breach of such fiduciary duties has been the proximate cause of injury and actual damages to Plaintiffs, for which Plaintiffs are entitled to an award of compensatory damages.
129. In addition to their fiduciary duties owed to the Plaintiffs, Defendants Hudgens and Crest Resources had a duty not to mislead and deceive the Plaintiffs. Defendants intentionally misled and deceived the Plaintiffs through the use of concealment, half-truths, and misleading statements. Hudgens and Crest Resources breached their duties owed to the Plaintiffs by conduct which includes, but is not limited to, the following:
(a) Concealing and failing to disclose to the Plaintiffs the Defendants’ plan and scheme to replace the Plaintiffs as Crest Resources’ Partners under the EDAs with an institutional lender
(b) Concealing and failing to disclose to the Plaintiffs the Defendants’ plan and scheme to take the Plaintiffs’ working interests and leasehold interests in the Coltharp and Buckingham units without compensation prior to the deadlines for electing in the Coltharp 4051(H);
(c) Concealing and failing to disclose to the Plaintiffs material information known to the Defendants regarding the potential reserves in the Coltharp and Buckingham units;
(d) Providing partial information to the Plaintiffs regarding the worth and value of the Mills Ranch Prospect while withholding other material information;
(e) Providing only false representations to the Plaintiffs regarding the worth and value of the Mills Ranch Prospect, and representing that Cordillera would reduce its offer once it obtained full disclosure, while, simultaneously concealing material information regarding undeveloped reserves in the Coltharp and Buckingham units;
(f) Hyping the value of the Mills Ranch Prospect to Guggenheim and Cordillera while denigrating the value of the Mills Ranch Prospect to Plaintiffs;
(g) Purporting to negotiate on the Plaintiffs’ behalf with Cordillera while concealing material facts, including the fact Defendants were simultaneously pursuing their scheme to take the Plaintiffs’ working interests and leasehold interests without compensation; the fact Defendants had pledged Plaintiffs’ working interests to Guggenheim in order to obtain Guggenheim financing; the true value and worth of the Mills Ranch Prospect; the fact that Defendants had no intention of selling to Cordillera, because the Defendants needed to drill wells in order to complete their plan and scheme to take the Plaintiffs’ working interests and leasehold interests in the Coltharp and Buckingham units without compensation;
(h) Attempting to apply a non-consent consequence that is in express derogation of the March 30, 2010 Coltharp 4051(H) well proposal and companion election form;
(i) Issuing the August 11, 2010, Well Proposal for the Buckingham 3021(H) without providing an explanation of the consequences for non-election and without correcting or qualifying the impression created by the March 30, 2010, Well Proposal;
(j) Encouraging the Plaintiffs to continue to pursue the sale of their working interests and leasehold interests in the Coltharp and Buckingham units of the Mills Ranch Prospect while concealing Defendants’ plan and scheme to take the Plaintiffs’ working interests and leasehold interests without compensation;
(k) Failing to disclose to Plaintiffs the true value of unit rights in Sections 21, 51 and 58;
(I) Misleading Plaintiffs into believing that Hudgens and Crest Resources were
acting on behalf of Plaintiffs when negotiating with Cordillera for the sale of
Plaintiffs’ interest in the Mills Ranch Prospect, particularly Sections 21, 51
and 58;
(m) Misleading the Plaintiffs into believing Crest Resources was seriously considering selling its interests in the Mills Ranch Prospect and misleading the Plaintiffs into believing Crest Resources was attempting to assist the Plaintiffs, while concealing the fact Defendants had represented to Guggenheim that Crest Resources owned or would own Plaintiffs’ interests and the fact Crest Resources had entered into a financing agreement with Guggenheim which was entirely inconsistent with a potential sale to Cordillera;
(n) Representing to the Plaintiffs that a PDP analysis was the basis of the Defendants’ own evaluation of the Mills Ranch Prospect while concealing geologic and volumetric reserve information;
(o) Excluding the Plaintiffs from notice of Crest Resources’ applications for Rule 37 and 38 exceptions before the Texas Railroad Commission so as to prevent Plaintiffs from learning of the Defendants’ plan and scheme to strip the acreage from prior wells;
(p) Concealing Defendants’ plan to strip acreage from wells in the Coltharp and Buckingham units, for which Plaintiffs had previously earned an assigmnent of working interests and leasehold interests;
(q) Orally agreeing to extensions of time with respect to the Coltharp and Buckingham units and then reffising to honor the extension of time as per the oral agreements;
(r) Representing to the Plaintiffs that Guggenheim had refused to release the Buckingham unit and to approve the sale to Cordillera, when no such communications took place and the Defendants had not commenced operations on the Buckingham 3021(H); and
(s) Usurping joint venture assets and opportunities for Defendants’ sole benefit.
130. By virtue of Hudgens’ and Crest Resources’ misrepresentations, concealment of material facts, constructive fraud and deceit, Defendants are estopped from denying Plaintiffs’ working interests and leasehold interests in the Coltharp and Buckingham units in the Mills Ranch Prospect.
131. By virtue of Hudgens’ and Crest Resources’ misrepresentations, concealment of material facts, constructive fraud and deceit, Plaintiffs have suffered all damages compensable under Oklahoma law and are entitled to an award of compensatory damages.
132. The acts of Hudgens and Crest Resources have been willful, wanton and malicious and in intentional disregard for the rights of the Plaintiffs, and as such should be punished by an award of punitive damages.
COUNT II
(Declaratory Judgment)
133. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporates the allegations in the paragraphs set forth above.
134. An actual controversy ofajusticiable nature exists between Plaintiffs and Defendants involving the rights and liabilities under EDAs, Chevron Farmout, joint operating and other third- party agreements and assignments, which controversy may be determined by the judgment of this Court. Plaintiffs are entitled to a declaratory judgment against all Defendants herein as follows:
(a) that Plaintiffs retain and have not forfeited any interests or leasehold rights in the Coltharp and Buckingham units of the Mills Ranch Prospect;
(b) that none of Plaintiffs’ interests in the Mills Ranch Prospect, to particularly include Sections 21, 51 and 58, have been subject to a compulsory farmout in favor of Crest Resources or others;
(c) that Defendants are estopped from denying that the consequences for non- consent to the well proposal for the Coltharp 4051 (Fl) is the applicable JOA penalty;
(d) that the Defendants are estopped from denying that the consequences for non- consent to the well proposal for the Buekingham 3021(H) is the applicable JOA penalty;
(e) that the elections of Langholz Energy, Lafapar and Wheeler Phoenix to participate in the Buckingham 302 1(H) were valid and timely and should have been recognized by the Defendants;
(l) that by virtue of the fact that Plaintiffs retained their working interests and leasehold rights in the Coltharp and Buckingham units, Plaintiffs were entitled to and should have received well proposals and elections forms for the Coltharp 5051(H), Buckingham 4021(H), Keith 4058(H), and Buckingham 6058(H);
(g) that Defendants are bound by the assignments provided to the Plaintiffs and filed of record in Wheeler County for the Coltharp and Buckingham units in the Mills Ranch Prospect and that said assignments convey unit interests and are not limited merely to the wellbores;
(h) that the assignments provided to Plaintiffs and filed of record in Wheeler County for the Coltharp and Buckingham units in the Mills Ranch Prospect contain no language requiring Plaintiffs to forfeit any of their working interests or leasehold interests in the Mills Ranch Prospect to Crest Resources or any other party or person;
(i) that the assignments provided to Plaintiffs and filed of record in Wheeler County for the Coltharp and Buckingham units in the Mills Ranch Prospect contain no requirement that Plaintiffs assign earned working interests and/or leasehold interests back to Crest Resources or another party or person and that the assignments contain no reversionary language;
(j) that the Defendants’ construction of the EDAs is contrary to the intent of the parties at the time the EDAs were executed and that Defendants’ construction of the EDAs violates the statute of frauds and constitutes an impermissible and unenforceable penalty and forfeiture;
(k) that no “farmout” of the previously earned and spaced Coltharp and Buckingham units occurred under the EDAs or otherwise as a result or consequence some of the Plaintiffs’ elections to go non-consent to the well proposals for the Coltharp and Buckingham units;
(1) that neither the Defendants nor any party claiming through the Defendants own and are entitled to exercise any dominion, control or authority over any working interests or leasehold interests in the Coltharp and Buckingham units of the Mills Ranch Prospect;
(m) that in addition to the rights of Chesapeake Exploration, LLC, Plaintiffs Langholz Energy and Holarud are entitled to participate in the Coltharp 5051(H) and all future wells in the Coltharp unit to the full extent of their correct working interest;
(n) that in addition to the rights of Chesapeake Exploration, LLC, Plaintiffs Langholz Energy, Holarud, Singer Bros. and H W Allen are entitled to participate in the Buckingham 4021(H), Buckingham 5058(H) and Buckingham 6058(H) and all future wells in the Buckingham unit to the full extent of theft correct working interest;
(o) that at the time of their respective assignments to Chesapeake Exploration, LLC, each of the Plaintiffs owned the quantum and type of interests specified in the respective assignments and that such interest had not been farmed out or forfeited to the Defendants or otherwise diluted.
(p) that Defendants have no right, title or power to grant overriding royalty interests or net profits interests to third parties to the extent such purported grant by Defendants comes from, or depends upon, diminishing or taking the working interests owned by the Plaintiffs, and that Defendants are liable for all consequential damages arising from such purported grant, to particularly include all revenues allocable to Plaintiffs’ interests that have been paid over to Guggenheim or others.
COUNT III
(Breach of Contract)
135. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate the allegations in the paragraphs set forth above.
136. Defendants have breached their contractual obligations to the Defendants under the governing and controlling contracts by failing to do what they promised to do and were contractually obligated to do. These breaches include, but are not limited to, the following:
(a) failing to honor the terms of the March 30, 2010, Well Proposal for the Coltharp 4051(H);
(b) wrongfully assuming ownership over Plaintiffs’ working interests and leasehold interests in the Coltharp and Buckingham units in the Mills Ranch Prospect;
(c) failing to offer Plaintiffs an opportunity to elect to participate and take a proportionate share of new interests acquired by Defendants in the Coltharp and Buckingham units as required under the AMI provisions ofthe EDAs and those agreements attached thereto, incorporated therein and made a part thereof
(d) failing to offer Plaintiffs Langholz Energy, Lafapar, Singer Bros., Holarud, H W Allen, and Wheeler Phoenix the opportunity to elect to participate in new well proposals in the Coltharp and Buckingham units;
(e) pledging the Plaintiffs’ working interests and leasehold interests to third- parties and failing to properly account for and pay revenues owed to Plaintiffs;
(0 failing to provide and disclose spacing information in well proposals for the Coltharp 405 1(H) and Buckingham 3021(H);
(g) failing to accept Langholz Energy,’ s Lafapar’ sand Wheeler Phoenix’s timely elections to the well proposal for the Buckingham 302 1(H);
(h) requiring Plaintiffs to respond to certain proposals within an unreasonably short forty-eight hours (48) in circumstances for which there is no contractual basis for a forty-eight (48) hour period of time notice;
(i) taking positions and assuming ownership and dominion over Plaintiffs’ working interests and leasehold interests in the Coltharp and Buckingham units in derogation of the Assignments issued by Crest Resources to the Plaintiffs;
(j) failing to follow the terms and conditions of the applicable JOA and Chevron Farmout Agreement incorporated into the EDAs;
(k) failing to provide Plaintiffs with proper notice of well proposals under the applicable JOA;
(1) failing to follow the intent of the parties when entering in the EDAs and unreasonably interpreting the Subsequent Wells provision in a manner never intended by the parties at the time the EDAs were executed; and,
(m) charging to the Plaintiffs costs and expenses which should have been absorbed by Crest Resources in its role as operator.
COUNT IV
(Slander of Title)
137. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference the allegations in the paragraphs set forth above.
138. Defendants have improperly asserted that Plaintiffs’ working interests and leasehold interests in the Coltharp and Buckingham units were subject to a compulsory, exclusive farmout and/or forfeiture to Crest Resources as a result of electing to go non-consent on well proposals for the Coltharp 4051(H) and the Buckingham 3021(H).
139. Defendants have repeatedly represented to numerous third-parties, including, but not limited to, Cordillera, Guggenheim, Andrews Kurth, and Chesapeake Exploration, LLC, among others, that Defendants own or have “contractual title” to the Plaintiffs’ working interests and leasehold interests in the Coltharp and Buckingham units of the Mills Ranch Prospect and have taken steps to make the record filings appears as if Defendants owned or acquired Plaintiffs’ working interests and leasehold interests.
140. Defendants have wrongfully asserted an adverse and hostile claim which is incompatible with Plaintiffs’ right, title and interest in the Mills Ranch Prospect.
141. Defendants’ claim that Crest Resources obtained Plaintiffs’ working interests and leasehold interests in the Coltharp and Mills Ranch Prospect without compensation by virtue of an alleged compulsory farmout or forfeiture was and is a slander of Plaintiffs’ title and constitutes a cloud on Plaintiffs’ title and that of the Plaintiffs’ successor in interest, Chesapeake.
142. Pursuant to the legal and equitable powers possessed by this Court, Plaintiffs seek to have this cloud over their title removed, as well as to remove the cloud on the title of those interests sold to Chesapeake.
143. Plaintiffs are entitled to recognition and affirmation of their working interests and leasehold interests, both before and after the sale to Chesapeake, and a declaration that Plaintiffs did not fannout or forfeit their working interests and leasehold interests in the Coltharp and Buckingham units of the Mills Ranch Prospect to Defendants.
144. Defendants’ actions in slandering the Plaintiffs’ title was willful, wanton, malicious, without a good faith basis and intentional. Defendants’ actions were taken in furtherance of the Defendants’ plan and scheme to seize the Plaintiffs’ working interests and leasehold interests without compensation.
145. By reason of the Defendants’ slander of title, Plaintiffs have suffered all special damages compensable under Oklahoma law.
COUNT V
(Tortious Interference)
146. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference the allegations in the paragraphs set forth above.
147. By virtue of the actions detailed above, which include, but are not limited to, Defendants’ interference with the sale to Cordillera, Defendants’ misrepresentations to Plaintiffs and actions taken to mislead the Plaintiffs as to the true value of the Coltharp and Buckingham units in the Mills Ranch Prospect, refusal to provide Plaintiffs with new well proposals, failure to properly offer to Plaintiffs new interests obtained within the AMI, and failure to acknowledge Plaintiffs’ valid sale of working interests and leasehold interests to Chesapeake, Defendants have intentionally and tortiously interfered with Plaintiffs’ contractual relations and prospective economic advantage.
148. By virtue of the Defendants’ tortious interference, Plaintiffs have suffered all damages compensable under Oklahoma law.
149. Defendants’ tortious interference has been willful, wanton, malicious, continuous, without a good faith basis and intentional such as to justify and require the imposition of punitive damages.
COUNT VI
(Constructive Trust)
150. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate the allegations in the paragraphs set forth above.
151. As a fiduciary and joint venturer, Crest Resources and Hudgens, and any other entity or party acting through them or on their behalf, including Defendants Crest 2010 and Crest Energy, hold all property, profit, benefit, or proceeds of the joint venture in trust, pursuant to 54 Okla. Stat. §1-404. In addition, by virtue of Defendants’ Hudgens and Crest Resources’ breach of their fiduciary duties to Plaintiffs, applicable law, and general principles of equity, Plaintiffs are entitled to have a constructive trust and lien imposed upon all of the assets and property of the joint venture, including any proceeds or funds in connection therewith, including the properties, the oil and gas
interests and other personal property described above, or any proceeds from any sale or other disposition of them.
COUNT VII
(Injunctive Relict)
152. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate the allegations in the paragraphs set forth above.
153. Plaintiffs are entitled to preliminary and permanent injunctive relief against Defendants Hudgens and Crest Resources, and any party acting by, through, or on their behalf, or for their benefit, including Defendants Crest 2010 and Crest Energy, enjoining, prohibiting, and barring said Defendants or other persons or entities from taking any action to exert dominion or control over, to appropriate, to transfer, encumber, pledge, sell or otherwise impair or interfere with Plaintiffs’ leasehold rights in the Mills Ranch Prospect, including but not limited to, the Coltharp and Buckingham units.
154. Plaintiffs do not have an adequate remedy at law and will be irreparably damaged if Defendants are allowed to continue to take the actions complained of herein that purport to, appropriate, diminish, impair, transfer, pledge or forfeit any of Plaintiffs’ leasehold rights in the Mills Ranch Prospect, including but not limited to, Sections 21, 51 and 58.
COUNT VIII
(Accounting)
155. Plaintiffs reallege and reincorporate the allegations in the paragraphs set forth above.
156. As a joint venturer with Plaintiffs, and by virtue of their position as a fiduciary and Crest Resource’s position as operator of the properties which are the subject of this action, Plaintiffs are entitled to an audit and accounting of the expenses and revenues associated with the Buckingham 2021 and Buckingham 3021(H), including the issue of whether and why Defendants have reallocated production from the Buckingham 2021 to the Buckingham 3021(H).
157. As a joint venturer with Plaintiffs, and by virtue of their position as a fiduciary and Crest Resources’s position as operator of the properties which are the subject ofthis action, Plaintiffs are entitled to a full accounting from Crest Resources of all affairs of the joint venture and Mills Ranch Prospect under applicable Oklahoma law, including, but not limited to, 54 Okla. Stat. § 1-404. As part of this accounting, Plaintiffs are entitled to an order of the Court compelling Crest Resources and Hudgens to provide a complete accounting of the joint venture, and a complete accounting of all funds attributable to, relating to, derived from or invested in any and all of the properties which arc the subject of this case. As part of this accounting, Plaintiffs further are entitled to a determination by this Court, in the exercise of its equitable jurisdiction, balancing all the claims, rights, titles and interests of the Plaintiffs and any of the Defendants, in and to any property, interests, or wells which are part of the Mills Ranch Prospect, and which are subject to the EDAs. Plaintiffs further are entitled to recover their attorney’s fees and costs incurred in this action.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs request that the Court enter judgment in their favor, and against the Defendants, and all of them, on all of their causes of action, as follows:
1. Judgment against all Defendants,jointly and severally, on Plaintiffs’ claims for breach of fiduciary duty, fraud, tortious interference and slander of title for compensatory damages in excess of $75,000.00 and an award of punitive damages in excess of $75,000.00, to be determined at trial, plus prejudgment interest and postjudgment interest thereon as provided by law;
2. Judgment against all Defendants for declaratory judgment as requested in Count II, paragraph 134, subparagraphs (a) through (p) above, including, but not limited to, a declaration that Defendants, or any third party claiming through Defendants, do not own any rights, including working interests, overriding royalty interests or net profits interests, in Sections 21, 51 or 58 that result from or arise out of certain Plaintiffs’ working interests in the Mills Ranch Prospect or Plaintiffs’ elections with respect to the Coltharp 4051W) or Buckingham 3021W);
3. Judgment against the Defendants in an amount in excess of $75,000.00 for the Defendants’ breach of their contractual obligations to the Plaintiffs;
4. Judgment against all Defendants and in favor of the Plaintiffs requiring the Defendants to disgorge all ill gotten gains and the reasonable value of Defendants’ unjust enrichment as a result of the Defendants’ actions and conduct described above;
4. Judgment against the Defendants imposing a constructive trust and lien imposed upon all the disputed properties and interests, and all production revenues and proceeds allocable to all interests Defendants claim to have been farmed out or forfeited by Plaintiffs;
5. Judgment imposing a permanent injunction barring and prohibiting the Defendants, and any party acting by, through or on their behalf, or for their benefit, from taking any additional actions which further cloud the title of Plaintiffs and/or Chesapeake in the Coltharp and Buckingham units of the Mills Ranch Prospect and from taking any other actions which are inconsistent with the Plaintiffs’ ownership and Chesapeake’s ownership over the disputed working interests and leasehold interests in Coltharp and Buckingham units of the Mills Ranch Prospect;
6. Judgment requiring the Defendants to provide a fill accounting as delineated in Paragraphs 156 and 157 above, including, an order and judgment requiring and compelling Hudgens and Crest Resources to provide a complete and full accounting of all the business affairs of the joint venture, and for any and all property or assets held at any time by the same, including all of the Mills Ranch Prospect, and any proceeds thereof;
7. Judgment against Defendants for the Plaintiffs’ reasonable costs incurred in this action, including a reasonable attorney’s fee, plus any and all such further legal or equitable relief to which Plaintiffs may be entitled.

DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER AND COUNTERCLAIMS TO
PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST AMENDED PETITION
Defendants Crcst Resources, Inc., (“Crest”) Glenn Hudgens (“Hudgens”), Crest
Resources 2010 L.L.C. (“Crest 2010”) and Crest Energy, Ltd. (“Crest Energy”) (co1JgDtively
“Defendants”) for their answer to each of the enumerated paragraphs of the First ?ñendbd
Petition (“Amended Petition”) filed by Roger M. Wheeler, Jr., Singer Bros., L.L.C., H.W? Allen
Co., L.L.C., HOLARUD 792, L.L.C., Langholz Energy, L.L.C., Lafapar Energy, L.LXD, and
Wheeler Phoenix, Inc. (“Plaintiffs”) on April 30, 2012, state as follows. All facts alld by
Plaintiffs in their Amended Petition are denied unless specifically admitted herein.
I. Defendants admit the allegations contained in Paragraph 1 of Plaintiffs’ Amended Petition.
2. Defendants admit the allegations contained in Paragraph 2 of Plaintiffs’ Amended Petition.
3. Defendants admit the allegations contained in Paragraph 3 of Plaintiffs’ Amended Petition.
4. Defendants admit the allegations contained in Paragraph 4 of Plaintiffs’ Amended Petition.
5. Defendants admit the allegations contained in Paragraph 5 of Plaintiffs’ Amended Petition.
6. Upon information and belief, Defendants admit the allegations contained in Paragraph 6 of Plaintiffs’ Amended Petition.
7. Defendants admit the allegations contained in Paragraph? of Plaintiffs’ Amended Petition.
8. Defendants admit the allegations contained in Paragraph 8 of Plaintiffs’ Amended Petition.
9. Defendants admit the allegations contained in Paragraph 9 of Plaintiffs’ Amended Petition.
10. Defendants admit the allegations contained in Paragraph 10 of Plaintiffs’ Amended Petition.
11. Defendants admit the allegations contained in Paragraph 11 of Plaintiffs’ Amended Petition.
12. Defendants deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 12 of Plaintiffs’ Amended Petition.
13. Defendants admit that this Court has subject matter and personal jurisdiction and the venue is appropriate in this Judicial District; except as specifically admitted herein, Defendants deny the allegation contained in Paragraph 13 of Plaintiffs’ Amended Petition.
14. Defendants admit the allegations contained in Paragraph 14 of Plaintiffs’ Amended Petition.
15. Defendants admit the allegations contained in Paragraph 15 of Plaintiffs’ Amended Petition.
16. Defendants admit the allegations contained in Paragraph 16 of Plaintiffs’ Amended Petition.
17. Defendants admit the allegations contained in Paragraph 17 of Plaintiffs’ Amended Petition.
18. Defendants admit that the Chevron Farmout Agreement and the 1996 Joint Operating Agreement (1996 JOA) were referenced in the EDA. By way of further response to the allegations contained in Paragraph 18, Defendants state that the EDAs speak for themselves.
19. Defendants admit the Chevron Farniout Agreement was amended on February 26,
1998; except as specifically admitted herein, Defendants deny the allegation contained in Paragraph 19 of Plaintiffs’ Amended Petition.
20. Defendants deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 20 of Plaintiffs’ Amended Petition.
21. Defendants admit the allegations contained in Paragraph 21 of Plaintiffs’ Amended Petition. By way of further response to the allegations contained in Paragraph 21, Defendants state that the EDAs speak for themselves.
22. Defendants admit the EDAs were cntered for the development of oil and gas wells within the prospect; however, except as specifically admitted herein, Defendants deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 22 of Plaintiffs’ Amended Petition. By way of further response to the allegations contained in Paragraph 21, Defendants state that the EDAs speak for themselves.
23. Defendants deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 23 of Plaintiffs’ Amended Petition.
24. Defendants deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 24 of Plaintiffs’ Amended Petition.
25. Defendants admit the allegations contained in Paragraph 25 of Plaintiffs’ Amended Petition. By way of further response the immediate notice to the EDA parties is limited to the EDA parties which have interest in the unit where the acreage was acquired.
26. Defendants admit the allegations contained in Paragraph 26 of Plaintiffs’ Amended Petition. By way of further response to the allegations contained in Paragraph 26, Defendants state that the EDAs speak for themselves.
27. Defendants admit the allegations contained in Paragraph 27 of Plaintiffs’ Amended Petition. By way of further response to the allegations contained in Paragraph 27, Defendants state that the amendment to the Alvil provisions speak for itself
28. Defendants admit that Crest Resources was not intended to be nor was it the initial operator at the time the EDAs were cxecuted; however, except as specifically admitted herein, Defendants deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 28 of Plaintiffs’ Amended Petition.
29. Defendants admit that upon the completion of the test well as a commercial producer, each party acquires an interest in the test well and the unit acreage held by such test well and that afler a producing well has been completed in a unit covered by the Chevron Farmout Agreement, Plaintiffs earned leasehold rights and working interests in those units;
however, except as specifically admitted herein, Defendants deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 29 of Plaintiffs’ Amended Petition.
30. Defendants deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 30 of Plaintiffs’ Amended Petition. By way of further response to the allegations contained in Paragraph 30, Defendants state that the EDAs speak for themselves.
31. Defendants admit the allegations contained in Paragraph 31 of Plaintiffs’ Amended Petition. By way of further response to the allegations contained in Paragraph 31, Defendants state that the EDAs speak for themselves.
32. Defendants admit the allegations contained in Paragraph 32 of Plaintiffs’ Amended Petition. By way of further response to the allegations contained in Paragraph 32, Defendants state that the EDAs speak for themselves.
33. Defendants deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 33 of Plaintiffs’ Amended Petition.
34. Defendants admit the allegations contained in the first sentence of Paragraph 34 of Plaintiffs’ Amended Petition; however, except as specifically admitted herein, Defendants deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 34 of Plaintiffs’ Amended Petition.
35. Defendants admit that on occasions Defendants made recommendations to the parties to the EDA regarding well proposals, and convened operators’ meetings when requested by the parties to the EDA, however, except as specifically admitted herein, Defendants deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 35 of Plaintiffs’ Amended Petition.
36. Defendants admit that on occasion Defendant Hudgens and Defendant Crest Resources referred to Plaintiffs as “internal investors,”“Crest investors,”“internals,”“Crest group,” and “Crest investor group,” however, except as specifically admitted herein, Defendants deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 36 of Plaintiffs’ Amended Petition.
37. Defendants admit the aflegations contained in Paragraph 37 of Plaintiffs’ Amended Petition.
38. Defendants admit the aflegations contained in Paragraph 38 of Plaintiffs’ Amended Petition.
39. Defendants deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 39 of Plaintiffs’ Amended Petition.
40. Defendants admit the acreage for the Buckingham unit was purchased and not earned under the Chevron Farmout Agreement; however, except as specifically admitted herein, Defendants deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 40 of Plaintiffs’ Amended Petition.
41. Defendants deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 41 of Plaintiffs’ Amended Petition.
42. Defendants admit the allegations contained in Paragraph 42 of Plaintiffs’ Amended Petition.
43. Defendants deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 43 of Plaintiffs’ Amended Petition.
44. Defendants deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 44 of Plaintiffs’ Amended Petition.
45. Defendants deny the allcgations contained in Paragraph 45 of Plaintiffs Amended.
46. Defendants admit the allegations contained in Paragraph 46 of Plaintiffs’ Amended Petition.
47. Defendants deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 47 of Plaintiffs’ Amended Petition.
48. Defendants deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 48 of Plaintiffs’ Amended Petition.
49. Defendants deny the allegations contained in Paragraphs 49 of Plaintiffs’ Amended Petition.
50. Defendants admit thc allegations contained in Paragraph 50 of Plaintiffs’ Amended Petition.
51. Defendants deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 51 of Plaintiffs’ Amended Petition.
52. Defendants admit the allegations contained in Paragraph 52 of Plaintiffs’ Amended Petition.
53. Defendants admit the allegations contained in Paragraph 53 of Plaintiffs’ Amended Petition; but deny the allegation or implication that Plaintiffs and Defendants were “Partners.”
54. Defendants admit the allegations contained in Paragraph 54 of Plaintiffs’ Amended Petition.
55. Defendants athit the allegations contained in Paragraph 55 of Plaintiffs’ Amended Petition.
56. Defendants admit the allegations contained in Paragraph 56 of Plaintiffs’ Amended Petition, but state that the well proposal letter and EDAs speak for themselves.
57. Defendants deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 57 of Plaintiffs’ Amended Petition.
58, Defendants deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 58 of Plaintiffs’ Amended Petition.
59. Defendants deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 59 of Plaintiffs’ Amended Petition.
60. Defendants deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 60 of Plaintiffs’ Amended Petition.
61. Defendants admit that they provided Plaintiffs with a Mills Ranch Crest Group PDP analysis on May 4, 2010; however, except as specifically admitted herein, Defendants deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 61 of Plaintiffs’ Amended Petition.
62. Defendants deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 62 of Plaintiffs’ Amended Petition.
63. Defendants admit the allegations contained in Paragraph 63 of Plaintiffs’ Amended Petition.
64. Defendants deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 64 of Plaintiffs’ Amended Petition.
65. Defendants admit that Plaintiff Holarud timely returned a signed election from agreeing to participate with a portion of its interest and attempted to go non-consent with the remaining part of its interests under the terms of the 1973 JOA.
66. Defendants deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 66 of Plaintiffs’ Amended Petition.
67. Defendants deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 67 of Plaintiffs’ Amended Petition. By way of further response, Defendants Singer Bros., Wheeler, H.W. Allen, and Wheeler Phoenix failed to respond to the well proposal letter, and performed no affirmative act to elect to go non-consent.
68. Defendants are without sufficient knowledge to admit or deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 68 of Plaintiffs’ Amended Petition, and therefore, deny the allegations contained therein and demand strict proof thereof.
69. Defendants deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 69 of Plaintiffs’ Amended Petition.
70. Defendants deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 70 of Plaintiffs’ Amended Petition.
71. Defendants deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 71 of Plaintiffs’ Amended Petition.
72. Defendants deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 72 of Plaintiffs’ Amended Petition.
73. Defendants deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 73 of Plaintiffs’ Amended Petition.
74. Defendants deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 74 of Plaintiffs’ Amended Petition.
75. Defendants admit that Cordillera Energy Partners (“Cordillera”) made and delivered to Crest Resources an offer to acquire Defendants’, Plaintiffs’, and other Mills Ranch Prospect working interest owners’ entire interests in the Mills Ranch Prospect; however, except as specifically admitted herein, Defendants deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 75 of Plaintiffs’ Amended Petition.
76. Defendants deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 76 of Plaintiffs’ Amended Petition.
77. Defendants deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 77 of Plaintiffs’ Amended Petition.
78. Defendants deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 78 of Plaintiffs’ Amended Petition.
79. Defendants deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 79 of Plaintiffs’ Amended Petition.
80. Defendants admit that on June 28, 2010, Crest Resources executed an assignment of various Mills Ranch assets to Crest Energy; however, except as specifically admitted herein, Defendants deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 80 of Plaintiffs’ Amended Petition.
81. Defendants admit that on June 28, 2010, Crest Energy executed an assignment of various Mills Ranch assets to Crest 2010; however, except as specifically admitted herein, Defendants deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 81 of Plaintiffs’ Amended Petition.
82. Defendants admit that on June 28, 2010, Crest Resources entered into an
Assignment of Prospective Rights for various interests within the Mills Ranch Prospect with
Crest 2010, Guggenheim Corporate Funding, L.L.C. (“Guggenheim”), and Crest Energy;
however, except as specifically admitted herein, Defendants deny the allegations contained in
Paragraph 82 of Plaintiffs’ Amended Petition.
83. Defendants admit that on June 28, 2010, Defendants entered into a Senior Secured Credit Agreement and a Open-End Line of Credit Dccd of Trust, Mortgage Indenture, Security Agreements, Financing Statement and Assignment of Production, which included an after-acquired property provision with Guggenheim; however, except as specifically admitted herein, Defendants deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 83 of Plaintif1s’ Amended Petition.
84. Defendants deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 84 of Plaintiffs’ Amended Petition.
85. Defendants deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 85 of Plaintiffs’ Amended Petition.
86. Defendants deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 86 of Plaintiffs’ Amended Petition.
87. Defendants deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 87 of Plaintiffs’ Amended Petition.
88. Defendants deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 88 of Plaintiffs’ Amended Petition.
89. Defendants deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 89 of Plaintiffs’ Amended Petition.
90. Defendants admit the allegations contained in the first sentence of Paragraph 90 of Plaintiffs’ Amended Petition; however, except as specifically admitted herein, Defendants deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 90 of Plaintiffs’ Amended Petition..
91. Defendants admit that on August 30, 2010, Crest Resources executed an assignment of Mills Ranch assets to Crest Energy; however, except as specifically admitted herein, Defendants deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 91 of Plaintiffs’ Amended Petition.
92. Defendants admit that on August 30, 2010, Crest Energy executed an assignment of Mills Ranch assets to Crest 2010; however, except as specifically admitted herein, Defendants deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 92 of Plaintiffs’ Amended Petition.
93. Defendants admit that P’aintiff Roland timely returned a signed election form, electing to join the Buckingham 3021(H) but only with a portion of its total interest and attempted to go non-consent with the remaining interest; however, except as specifically admitted herein, Defendants deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 93 of Plaintiffs’ Amended Petition.
94. Defendants deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 94 of Plaintiffs’ Amended Petition.
95. Defendants deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 95 of Plaintiffs’ Amended Petition.
96. Defendants deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 96 of Plaintiffs’ Amended Petition.
97. Defendants deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 97 of Plaintiffs’ Amended Petition.
98. Defendants deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 98 of Plaintiffs’ Amended Petition.
99. Defendants admit the allegations contained in Paragraph 99 of Plaintiffs’ Amended Petition. By way of further explanation, if any of the EDA parties elected to participate in the well, Defendants may have been obligated to offer the interests to the EDA parties before offering the interests to Guggenheim.
100. Defendants deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 100 of Plaintiffs’ Amended Petition.
101. Defendants deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 101 of Plaintiffs’ Amended Petition.
102. Defendants deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 102 of Plaintiffs’ Amended Petition.
103. Defendants deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 103 of Plaintiffs’ Amended Petition.
104. Defendants deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 104 of Plaintiffs’ Amended Petition.
105. Defendants admit that on January 5 and 6, 2011, Crest Resources assigned and conveyed its right, title, and interest in the Coltharp and Buckingham units to Crest Energy; however, except as specifically admitted herein, Defendants deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 105 of Plaintiffs’ Amended Petition.
106. Defendants admit that on May 10, 2011, Crest Resources sent out the Buckingham 402 1(H) well proposal; however, except as specifically admitted herein, Defendants deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 106 of Plaintiffs’ Amended Petition.
107. Defendants admit that on June Il, 2011, Crest Resources executed an assignment of various Mills Ranch assets to Crest Energy; however, except as specifically admitted herein, Defendants deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 107 of Plaintiffs’ Amended Petition.
108. Defendants admit that on June 11, 2011, Crest Energy executed an assignment of various Mills Ranch assets to Crest 20t0; however, except as specifically admitted herein, Defendants deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 108 of Plaintiffs’ Amended Petition.
109. Defendants admit the allegations contained in the first sentence of Paragraph 109 of Plaintiffs’ Amended Petition; however, except as specifically admitted herein, Defendants deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 109 of Plaintiffs’ Amended Petition.
110. Defendants admit the allegations contained in the first sentence of Paragraph 110 of Plaintiffs’ Amended Petition; however, except as specifically admitted herein, Defendants deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 110 of Plaintiffs’ Amended Petition.
111. Defendants admit the allegations contained in the first sentence of Paragraph 111 of Plaintiffs’ Amended Petition; however, except as specifically admitted herein, Defendants deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 111 of Plaintiffs’ Amended Petition.
112. Defendants admit the allegations contained in the first sentence of Paragraph 112 of Plaintiffs’ Amended Petition; however, except as specifically admitted herein, Defendants deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 112 oF Plaintiffs’ Amended Petition.
113. Defendants admit that they have made numerous well proposals in the Coltharp and Buckingham units and completed a number of wells after the filing of this lawsuit; however, except as specifically admitted herein, Defendants deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 113 of Plaintiffs’ Amended Petition.
114. Defendants deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 114 of Plaintiffs’ Amended Petition.
115. Defendants admit that they proposed and developed numerous wells in the Coltharp and Buckingham units despite the filing of the lawsuit; however, except as specifically admitted herein, Defendants deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 115 of Plaintiffs’ Amended Petition.
116. Defendants deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 116 of Plaintiffs’ Amended Petition.
117. Defendants admit that Plaintiffs have farmed out their working interests and leasehold rights, except for existing weilbores, in the Coltharp and Buckingham units, which include Sections 21, 51, and 58 as provided for by the EDA; however, except as specifically admitted herein, Defendants deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 117 of Plaintiffs’ Amended Petition.
118. Defendants admit that Crest 2010 and Crest Energy claim some interest in the Mills Ranch Prospect including in the Coltharp and Buckingham units; however, except as specifically admitted herein, Defendants deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 118 of Plaintiffs’ Amended Petition.
119. Defendants admit the allegations contained in Paragraph 119 of Plaintiffs’ Amended Petition.
120. Defendants admit the allcgations contained in the first sentence of Paragraph 120 of Plaintiffs’ Amended Petition; however, except as specifically admitted herein, Defendants deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 120 of Plaintiffs’ Amended Petition.
121. Defendants admit that Plaintiffs have lately advised Crest Resources that they objected to the expenses charged by Crest Resources, and that Plaintiffs have demanded an accounting for all income, expenses, and other financial affairs, as well the property of, the joint venture, and the Mills Ranch Prospect; however, except as specifically admitted herein, Defendants deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 121 of Plaintiffs’ Amended Petition.
122. Defendants deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 121 of Plaintiffs’ Amended Petition.
123. Defendants deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 123 of Plaintiffs’ Amended Petition.
124. Defendants deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 124 of Plaintiffs’ Amended Petition.
125. Defendants deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 125 of Plaintiffs’ Amended Petition.
COUNT I
(Breach of Fiduciary Duty. Constructive Fraud, Fraud and Deceit)
126. Defendants hereby incorporate by reference their responses to Paragraphs 1-125 of Plaintiffs’ Amended Petition.
127. Defendants deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 127 of Plaintiffs’ Amended Petition.
128. Defendants deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 128 of Plaintiffs’ Amended Petition.
129. Defendants deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 129 and each of its subparts (a) — (s) of Plaintiffs’ Amended Petition.
130. Defendants deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 130 of Plaintiffs’ Amended Petition.
131. Defendants deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 131 of Plaintiffs’ Amended Petition.
132. Defendants deny the allegations contained in Paragraph t32 of Plaintiffs’ Amended Petition.
COUNT II
(Declaratory Jud2ment)
133. Defendants hereby incorporate by reference their responses to Paragraphs 1-132 of Plaintiffs’ Amended Petition.
134. Defendants deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 134 and each of its subparts (a) — (p) of Plaintiffs’ Amended Petition
COUNT III
(Breach of Contract)
135. Defendants hereby incorporate by reference their responses to Paragraphs 1-134 of Plaintiffs’ Amended Petition.
136. Defendants deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 136 and each of its subparts (a) — (m) of Plaintiffs’ Amended Petition.
COUNT IV
(Slander of Title)
137. Defendants hereby incorporate by reference their responses to Paragraphs 1-136 of Plaintiffs’ Amended Petition.
138. Defendants admit that Plaintiffs’ working interests and leasehold interests in the Coltharp and Buckinghani units were subject to a compulsory, exclusive farmout andlor forfeiture to Crest Resources as a result of Plaintiffs electing to not participate on the well proposals for the Buckingham 4051(h) and the Buckingham 3021(H); however, except as specifically admitted herein, Defendants deny thc allegations contained in Paragraph 138 of Plaintiffs’ Amended Petition.
139. Defendants admit they have rcprescnted to third-parties that Defendants own or have “contractual title” to the Plaintiffs’ former interests and former leasehold interests in the Coltharp and Buckingham units of the Mills Ranch Prospect; however, except as specifically admitted herein, Defendants deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 139 of Plaintiffs’ Amended Petition.
140. Defendants deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 140 of Plaintiffs’ Amended Petition.
141. Defendants deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 141 of Plaintiffs’ Amended Petition.
142. Defendants deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 142 of Plaintiffs’ Amended Petition.
143. Defendants deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 143 of Plaintiffs’ Amended Petition.
144. Defendants deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 144 of Plaintiffs’ Amended Petition.
145. Defendants deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 145 of Plaintiffs’ Amended Petition.
COUNT V
(Tortious Interference)
146. Defendants hereby incorporate by reference their responses to Paragraphs 1-145 of Plaintiffs’ Amended Petition.
147. Defendants deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 147 of Plaintiffs’ Amended Petition.
148. Defendants deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 148 of Plaintiffs’ Amended Petition.
149. Defendants deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 149 of Plaintiffs’ Amended Petition.
COUNT VI
(Coiistructive Trust)
150. Defendants hereby incorporate by reference their responses to Paragraphs 1-149 of Plaintiffs’ Amended Petition.
1 51. Defendants deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 151 of Plaintiffs’ Amended Petition.
COUNT VII
(Injunctive Relief)
152. Defendants hereby incorporate by reference their responses to Paragraphs 1-15 1 of Plaintiffs’ Amended Petition.
153. Defendants deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 153 of Plaintiffs’ Amended Petition.
154. Defendants deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 154 of Plaintiffs’ Amended Petition.
COUNT VIII
(Accounting)
155. Defendants hereby incorporate by reference their responses to Paragraphs 1-154 of Plaintiffs’ Amended Petition.
156. Defendants deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 156 of Plaintiffs’ Amended Petition.
157. Defendants deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 157 of Plaintiffs’ Amended Petition.
AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
Upon best knowledge, information, and belief, the following affirmative defenses are asserted to have or are likely to have evidentiary support upon a reasonable opportunity for further investigation and discovery:
1. Plaintiffs’ Amended Petition fails, in whole or in part, to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.
2. Plaintiffs’ theories of recovery may be barred, in whole or in part, by estoppel, waiver, laches, andlor unclean hands.
3. Defendants reserve the right to amend this Answer and affirmative defenses at the conclusion of discovery in this case.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, Defendants Crest Resources, Inc., Glenn Hudgens, Crest Resources 2010 L.L.C., Crest Energy, Ltd. pray the Court to enter judgment in their favor and against Plaintiffs and award Defendants their costs, attorneys’ fees, litigation expenses and all other relief to which Defendants may be entitled to in law or in equity.
COUNTERCLAIMS
Defendants Crest Resources, Inc., (“Crest”) Glenn Hudgens (“Hudgens”), Crest Resources 2010 L.L.C. (“Crest 2010”), Crest Energy, Ltd. (“Crest Energy”) (collectively herein “Defendants”) for their Counterclaims against Plaintiffs Roger M. Wheeler, Jr., Singer Bros., L.L.C., H. W. Allen Co., Holarud 792, L.L.C., Langholz Energy, L.L.C., Lafapar Energy, L.L.C. and Wheeler Phoenix, Inc. (“Plaintiffs”) state:
General Allegations
1. Defendants hereby incorporate by reference their “Answer” herein, Paragraphs 1 through 157, to Plaintiffs’ Amended Petition.
2. Plaintiff Langholz Energy, L.L.C. (“Langholz”) entered into an Exploration/Development Agreement (“FDA”) with Crest in or around January 1997.
3. Plaintiff Roger M. Wheeler, Jr. (“Wheeler”) entered into an EDA with Crest in or around January 1997.
4. Plaintiff Singer Bros., L.L.C. (“Singer”) entered into an EDA with Crest in or around January 1997.
5. Plaintiff H.W. Allen Co. (“H.W. Allen”) entered into an EDA with Crest in or around January 1997.
6. Plaintiff Holarud Partners 792, L.L.C. (“Holarud”) entered into an EDA with Crest in or around January 1997.
7. Upon information and belief, Plaintiff Lafapar Energy, L.L.C. obtained its interest from Langholz, and therefore these interests are subject to the FDA signed between Langholz and Defendants.
8. Plaintiff Wheeler Phoenix, the. (“Phoenix”) entered into an EDA with Crest in or around January 1997.
9. Plaintiffs have purported to have sold all or a portion of their interests in the Mills Ranch Prospect to Plaintiff/Intervenor Chesapeake Exploration, L.L.C. (“Chesapeake”). Any interests acquired by Chesapeake came directly from the Plaintiffs subject to the EDAs.
COUNT I
Breach of Contract
10. Defendants reallege and reincorporate the allegations in Paragraphs 1 through 9 above.
II. Upon information and belief, Plaintiffs breached the EDA with Crest by agreeing to sell their interests in the Mills Ranch Prospect to Chesapeake while an active well proposal was in effect. According to the “Subsequent Wells” provisions of the EDA, after receipt of written notice proposing a subsequent wcll, the receiving party has thirty days to elect to either A) participate; B) farmout its interests only to Crest reserving an override equal to the difference between the present burdens and 25%, thereby delivering Crest 75% net revenue interests leasehold; or C) to sell its interests only to participating parties at a specified price.
12. Since these Plaintiffs all but failed to participate in the subsequent well, the only options available regarding their interests were to either farmout the interests to Crest or sell the interest only to participating parties. The sales and assignments to Chesapeake were outside of the options available to Plaintiffs under the FDA they executed with Crest. Crest has been injured due to the Plaintiffs’ breaches of contract.
COUNT II
Slander of Title
13. Defendants reallege and reincorporate the allegations in Paragraphs 1 - 12 above.
14. Through Plaintiffs’ Amended Petition and other actions associated with these properties, Plaintiffs has improperly asserted that some of Defendants’ interests in the Mills Ranch Prospect are void because the Plaintiffs did not farm out their interest to Crest.
15. Each of Crest’s well proposals in the Mills Ranch Prospect were valid and enforceable.
16. The failure of the Plaintiffs to participate in the Coltharp 4-51H well proposal caused the Plaintiffs’ interests and its successor, Chesapeake, as to the interest acquired by Chesapeake, to be farmed out to Crest. Defendants have assigned their leasehold interests in the Coltharp and Buckingham Units to Crest 2010 for the purposes of financing related to the unit.
These leaseholds interest include those claimed by Plaintiffs in the Buckingham Unit, and most of the interests in the Coltharp Unit.
17. Plaintiffs have wrongfully asserted an adverse and hostile claim which is incompatible with Defendants’ right, title and interest in the Mills Ranch Prospect.
18. Plaintiffs claim that thcy have retained certain leasehold rights and interests which have purported to be assigned to Chesapeake is a slander of Defendants’ title and constitutes a cloud on Defendants’ title.
19. Pursuant to 12 0.5. § 1141 and such other legal and equitable powers possessed by this Court, Defendants seek to have this cloud on their title removed.
20. Defendants are entitled to recognition and affirmation of its leasehold rights in the Mills Ranch Prospect and a declaration that the Plaintiffs farmed out leasehold rights as a result of failing to elect under the well proposals.
21. Defendants arc further entitled to an Order of this Court declaring that Plaintiffs do not own, and are not entitled to exercise any dominion or control over the leasehold rights of Defendants in the Mills Ranch Prospect.
COUNT III
Declaratory Judgment
22. Defendants reallcgc and rcincorporate the allegations in Paragraphs 1 through 21 above.
23. Pursuant to 12 0.5. § 1651, Defendants assert than an actual controversy exists between Plaintiffs and their successor Chesapeake, and Defendants.
24. Defendants ask this Court to determine certain rights and legal relations between the parties regarding ownership of interests in certain oil and gas properties and wells. The Court is also asked to determine the construction and validity of certain agreements between the parties including, but not limited by, the Chevron Farmout Agreement, Joint Operating Agreements, Exploration and Development Agreements, well proposals and election ballots.
25. Defendants ask this Court to declare that due to the Plaintiffs’ failure to time elect to participate in the well proposals, Plaintiffs’ interests have been farmed out to Defendants and immune to any hostile claim by Plaintiffs, or their successor Chesapeake.
26. Defendants ask this Court to declare that neither the Plaintiffs nor its successor
Chesapeake, are entitled to participate in all subject wells, including but not limited by the
Coltharp 4-5 lH, Coltharp 5-51 H, Buckingham 3-2 lH, Buckingham 4-21H and all future Mills
Ranch wells in the Coltharp and Buckingham units except to the extent that a Plaintiff timely
elected to participate with a reduced interest in same.
27. Defendants ask the Court to declare that the rights of Plaintiffs, and their successor Chesapeake, in the subject land and wells are governed by those EDAs executed by Plaintiffs, and the consequcnces of failing to elect to participate as stated therein.
28. Defendants ask the Court to declare that at the time of their respective attempted assignments to Chesapeake, each Plaintiff did not own the quantum and type of interest specified in their respective assignments, as those interests had previously been farmed out to Defendants under the EDA.
29. Defendants ask the Court to declare the Defendants are entitled to a Declaratory Judgment that none of thc Plaintiffs, or anyone claiming by, through or under them, including but not limited to Chesapeake, own or are entitled to exercise any dominion, control or authority over any of Defendants interests acquired through farmout.





Outcome: Issue # 1. Issue: BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY, CONSTRUCTIVE FRAUD, FRAUD & DECEIT (DUTY)
Filed By: WHEELER, ROGER M JR
Filed Date: 04/30/2012
Party Name Disposition Information
Defendant: CREST RESOURCES INC Disposed: DISMISSED - WITH PREJUDICE, 10/19/2015. Dismissed- Settled
Defendant: CREST RESOURCES INC Disposed: DISMISSED - WITH PREJUDICE, 10/19/2015. Dismissed- Settled
Defendant: CREST RESOURCES INC Disposed: DISMISSED - WITH PREJUDICE, 10/19/2015. Dismissed- Settled
Plaintiff: LANGHOLZ ENERGY LLC Disposed: DISMISSED - WITH PREJUDICE, 10/19/2015. Dismissed- Settled
Defendant: CREST RESOURCES INC Disposed: DISMISSED - WITH PREJUDICE, 10/19/2015. Dismissed- Settled
Defendant: HUDGENS, GLENN Disposed: DISMISSED - WITH PREJUDICE, 10/19/2015. Dismissed- Settled
Defendant: CREST RESOURCES INC Disposed: DISMISSED - WITH PREJUDICE, 10/19/2015. Dismissed- Settled
Defendant: CREST RESOURCES INC Disposed: DISMISSED - WITH PREJUDICE, 10/19/2015. Dismissed- Settled
Defendant: HUDGENS, GLENN Disposed: DISMISSED - WITH PREJUDICE, 10/19/2015. Dismissed- Settled
Defendant: HUDGENS, GLENN Disposed: DISMISSED - WITH PREJUDICE, 10/19/2015. Dismissed- Settled
Defendant: HUDGENS, GLENN Disposed: DISMISSED - WITH PREJUDICE, 10/19/2015. Dismissed- Settled
Defendant: HUDGENS, GLENN Disposed: DISMISSED - WITH PREJUDICE, 10/19/2015. Dismissed- Settled
Defendant: HUDGENS, GLENN Disposed: DISMISSED - WITH PREJUDICE, 10/19/2015. Dismissed- Settled
Issue # 2. Issue: DECLARATORY JUDGMENT - CIVIL NO DAMAGES (DECLARE1)
Filed By: HOLARUD 792 LLC
Filed Date: 04/30/2012
Party Name Disposition Information
Defendant: CREST RESOURCES 2010 LLC Disposed: DISMISSED - WITH PREJUDICE, 10/19/2015. Dismissed- Settled
Defendant: CREST RESOURCES 2010 LLC Disposed: DISMISSED - WITH PREJUDICE, 10/19/2015. Dismissed- Settled
Defendant: CREST RESOURCES 2010 LLC Disposed: DISMISSED - WITH PREJUDICE, 10/19/2015. Dismissed- Settled
Defendant: CREST RESOURCES 2010 LLC Disposed: DISMISSED - WITH PREJUDICE, 10/19/2015. Dismissed- Settled
Defendant: CREST RESOURCES 2010 LLC Disposed: DISMISSED - WITH PREJUDICE, 10/19/2015. Dismissed- Settled
Defendant: CREST RESOURCES 2010 LLC Disposed: DISMISSED - WITH PREJUDICE, 10/19/2015. Dismissed- Settled
Defendant: CREST RESOURCES 2010 LLC Disposed: DISMISSED - WITH PREJUDICE, 10/19/2015. Dismissed- Settled
Defendant: CREST RESOURCES 2010 LLC Disposed: DISMISSED - WITH PREJUDICE, 10/19/2015. Dismissed- Settled
Defendant: CREST RESOURCES 2010 LLC Disposed: DISMISSED - WITH PREJUDICE, 10/19/2015. Dismissed- Settled
Defendant: CREST RESOURCES 2010 LLC Disposed: DISMISSED - WITH PREJUDICE, 10/19/2015. Dismissed- Settled
Defendant: CREST RESOURCES 2010 LLC Disposed: DISMISSED - WITH PREJUDICE, 10/19/2015. Dismissed- Settled
Defendant: CREST RESOURCES 2010 LLC Disposed: DISMISSED - WITH PREJUDICE, 10/19/2015. Dismissed- Settled
Defendant: HUDGENS, GLENN Disposed: DISMISSED - WITH PREJUDICE, 10/19/2015. Dismissed- Settled
Defendant: HUDGENS, GLENN Disposed: DISMISSED - WITH PREJUDICE, 10/19/2015. Dismissed- Settled
Defendant: HUDGENS, GLENN Disposed: DISMISSED - WITH PREJUDICE, 10/19/2015. Dismissed- Settled
Defendant: HUDGENS, GLENN Disposed: DISMISSED - WITH PREJUDICE, 10/19/2015. Dismissed- Settled
Defendant: HUDGENS, GLENN Disposed: DISMISSED - WITH PREJUDICE, 10/19/2015. Dismissed- Settled
Defendant: HUDGENS, GLENN Disposed: DISMISSED - WITH PREJUDICE, 10/19/2015. Dismissed- Settled
Defendant: HUDGENS, GLENN Disposed: DISMISSED - WITH PREJUDICE, 10/19/2015. Dismissed- Settled
Defendant: CREST RESOURCES INC Disposed: DISMISSED - WITH PREJUDICE, 10/19/2015. Dismissed- Settled
Defendant: CREST ENERGY LTD Disposed: DISMISSED - WITH PREJUDICE, 10/19/2015. Dismissed- Settled
Defendant: CREST RESOURCES INC Disposed: DISMISSED - WITH PREJUDICE, 10/19/2015. Dismissed- Settled
Defendant: CREST ENERGY LTD Disposed: DISMISSED - WITH PREJUDICE, 10/19/2015. Dismissed- Settled
Defendant: CREST ENERGY LTD Disposed: DISMISSED - WITH PREJUDICE, 10/19/2015. Dismissed- Settled
Defendant: CREST ENERGY LTD Disposed: DISMISSED - WITH PREJUDICE, 10/19/2015. Dismissed- Settled
Defendant: CREST ENERGY LTD Disposed: DISMISSED - WITH PREJUDICE, 10/19/2015. Dismissed- Settled
Defendant: CREST ENERGY LTD Disposed: DISMISSED - WITH PREJUDICE, 10/19/2015. Dismissed- Settled
Defendant: CREST ENERGY LTD Disposed: DISMISSED - WITH PREJUDICE, 10/19/2015. Dismissed- Settled
Defendant: CREST RESOURCES 2010 LLC Disposed: DISMISSED - WITH PREJUDICE, 10/19/2015. Dismissed- Settled
Defendant: CREST RESOURCES 2010 LLC Disposed: DISMISSED - WITH PREJUDICE, 10/19/2015. Dismissed- Settled
Issue # 3. Issue: BREACH OF CONTRACT (CONTRACT)
Filed By: LANGHOLZ ENERGY LLC
Filed Date: 04/30/2012
Party Name Disposition Information
Defendant: CREST RESOURCES 2010 LLC Disposed: DISMISSED - WITH PREJUDICE, 10/19/2015. Dismissed- Settled
Defendant: CREST RESOURCES 2010 LLC Disposed: DISMISSED - WITH PREJUDICE, 10/19/2015. Dismissed- Settled
Defendant: CREST RESOURCES 2010 LLC Disposed: DISMISSED - WITH PREJUDICE, 10/19/2015. Dismissed- Settled
Defendant: CREST RESOURCES 2010 LLC Disposed: DISMISSED - WITH PREJUDICE, 10/19/2015. Dismissed- Settled
Defendant: CREST RESOURCES 2010 LLC Disposed: DISMISSED - WITH PREJUDICE, 10/19/2015. Dismissed- Settled
Defendant: CREST RESOURCES 2010 LLC Disposed: DISMISSED - WITH PREJUDICE, 10/19/2015. Dismissed- Settled
Defendant: CREST RESOURCES 2010 LLC Disposed: DISMISSED - WITH PREJUDICE, 10/19/2015. Dismissed- Settled
Defendant: CREST RESOURCES 2010 LLC Disposed: DISMISSED - WITH PREJUDICE, 10/19/2015. Dismissed- Settled
Defendant: CREST RESOURCES 2010 LLC Disposed: DISMISSED - WITH PREJUDICE, 10/19/2015. Dismissed- Settled
Defendant: CREST RESOURCES 2010 LLC Disposed: DISMISSED - WITH PREJUDICE, 10/19/2015. Dismissed- Settled
Defendant: CREST RESOURCES 2010 LLC Disposed: DISMISSED - WITH PREJUDICE, 10/19/2015. Dismissed- Settled
Defendant: CREST RESOURCES 2010 LLC Disposed: DISMISSED - WITH PREJUDICE, 10/19/2015. Dismissed- Settled
Defendant: CREST RESOURCES 2010 LLC Disposed: DISMISSED - WITH PREJUDICE, 10/19/2015. Dismissed- Settled
Issue # 4. Issue: SLANDER OF TITLE (OTHER)
Filed By: SINGER BROS LLC
Filed Date: 04/30/2012
Party Name Disposition Information
Defendant: CREST RESOURCES INC Disposed: DISMISSED - WITH PREJUDICE, 10/19/2015. Dismissed- Settled
Defendant: CREST RESOURCES INC Disposed: DISMISSED - WITH PREJUDICE, 10/19/2015. Dismissed- Settled
Defendant: CREST RESOURCES INC Disposed: DISMISSED - WITH PREJUDICE, 10/19/2015. Dismissed- Settled
Defendant: CREST RESOURCES INC Disposed: DISMISSED - WITH PREJUDICE, 10/19/2015. Dismissed- Settled
Defendant: CREST RESOURCES INC Disposed: DISMISSED - WITH PREJUDICE, 10/19/2015. Dismissed- Settled
Defendant: CREST RESOURCES INC Disposed: DISMISSED - WITH PREJUDICE, 10/19/2015. Dismissed- Settled
Defendant: CREST RESOURCES INC Disposed: DISMISSED - WITH PREJUDICE, 10/19/2015. Dismissed- Settled
Defendant: CREST RESOURCES INC Disposed: DISMISSED - WITH PREJUDICE, 10/19/2015. Dismissed- Settled
Issue # 5. Issue: TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE (INTERFERE)
Filed By: WHEELER, ROGER M JR
Filed Date: 04/30/2012
Party Name Disposition Information
Defendant: CREST ENERGY LTD Disposed: DISMISSED - WITH PREJUDICE, 10/19/2015. Dismissed- Settled
Defendant: CREST ENERGY LTD Disposed: DISMISSED - WITH PREJUDICE, 10/19/2015. Dismissed- Settled
Defendant: CREST ENERGY LTD Disposed: DISMISSED - WITH PREJUDICE, 10/19/2015. Dismissed- Settled
Defendant: CREST ENERGY LTD Disposed: DISMISSED - WITH PREJUDICE, 10/19/2015. Dismissed- Settled
Defendant: HUDGENS, GLENN Disposed: DISMISSED - WITH PREJUDICE, 10/19/2015. Dismissed- Settled
Defendant: CREST ENERGY LTD Disposed: DISMISSED - WITH PREJUDICE, 10/19/2015. Dismissed- Settled
Defendant: CREST ENERGY LTD Disposed: DISMISSED - WITH PREJUDICE, 10/19/2015. Dismissed- Settled
Defendant: HUDGENS, GLENN Disposed: DISMISSED - WITH PREJUDICE, 10/19/2015. Dismissed- Settled
Defendant: HUDGENS, GLENN Disposed: DISMISSED - WITH PREJUDICE, 10/19/2015. Dismissed- Settled
Defendant: HUDGENS, GLENN Disposed: DISMISSED - WITH PREJUDICE, 10/19/2015. Dismissed- Settled
Defendant: CREST RESOURCES 2010 LLC Disposed: DISMISSED - WITH PREJUDICE, 10/19/2015. Dismissed- Settled
Defendant: CREST RESOURCES 2010 LLC Disposed: DISMISSED - WITH PREJUDICE, 10/19/2015. Dismissed- Settled
Defendant: CREST RESOURCES 2010 LLC Disposed: DISMISSED - WITH PREJUDICE, 10/19/2015. Dismissed- Settled
Defendant: CREST RESOURCES 2010 LLC Disposed: DISMISSED - WITH PREJUDICE, 10/19/2015. Dismissed- Settled
Defendant: CREST RESOURCES 2010 LLC Disposed: DISMISSED - WITH PREJUDICE, 10/19/2015. Dismissed- Settled
Defendant: CREST RESOURCES 2010 LLC Disposed: DISMISSED - WITH PREJUDICE, 10/19/2015. Dismissed- Settled
Defendant: CREST RESOURCES 2010 LLC Disposed: DISMISSED - WITH PREJUDICE, 10/19/2015. Dismissed- Settled
Defendant: CREST RESOURCES 2010 LLC Disposed: DISMISSED - WITH PREJUDICE, 10/19/2015. Dismissed- Settled
Defendant: CREST RESOURCES 2010 LLC Disposed: DISMISSED - WITH PREJUDICE, 10/19/2015. Dismissed- Settled
Defendant: CREST RESOURCES 2010 LLC Disposed: DISMISSED - WITH PREJUDICE, 10/19/2015. Dismissed- Settled
Defendant: HUDGENS, GLENN Disposed: DISMISSED - WITH PREJUDICE, 10/19/2015. Dismissed- Settled
Defendant: HUDGENS, GLENN Disposed: DISMISSED - WITH PREJUDICE, 10/19/2015. Dismissed- Settled
Defendant: CREST RESOURCES 2010 LLC Disposed: DISMISSED - WITH PREJUDICE, 10/19/2015. Dismissed- Settled
Defendant: CREST RESOURCES 2010 LLC Disposed: DISMISSED - WITH PREJUDICE, 10/19/2015. Dismissed- Settled
Defendant: CREST RESOURCES 2010 LLC Disposed: DISMISSED - WITH PREJUDICE, 10/19/2015. Dismissed- Settled
Defendant: CREST RESOURCES 2010 LLC Disposed: DISMISSED - WITH PREJUDICE, 10/19/2015. Dismissed- Settled
Defendant: CREST RESOURCES 2010 LLC Disposed: DISMISSED - WITH PREJUDICE, 10/19/2015. Dismissed- Settled
Defendant: CREST RESOURCES 2010 LLC Disposed: DISMISSED - WITH PREJUDICE, 10/19/2015. Dismissed- Settled
Defendant: CREST RESOURCES 2010 LLC Disposed: DISMISSED - WITH PREJUDICE, 10/19/2015. Dismissed- Settled
Defendant: CREST RESOURCES 2010 LLC Disposed: DISMISSED - WITH PREJUDICE, 10/19/2015. Dismissed- Settled
Defendant: CREST RESOURCES 2010 LLC Disposed: DISMISSED - WITH PREJUDICE, 10/19/2015. Dismissed- Settled
Defendant: CREST RESOURCES 2010 LLC Disposed: DISMISSED - WITH PREJUDICE, 10/19/2015. Dismissed- Settled
Issue # 6. Issue: CONSTRUCTIVE TRUST (OTHER)
Filed By: SINGER BROS LLC
Filed Date: 04/30/2012
Party Name Disposition Information
Defendant: CREST RESOURCES 2010 LLC Disposed: DISMISSED - WITH PREJUDICE, 10/19/2015. Dismissed- Settled
Defendant: CREST ENERGY LTD Disposed: DISMISSED - WITH PREJUDICE, 10/19/2015. Dismissed- Settled
Defendant: HUDGENS, GLENN Disposed: DISMISSED - WITH PREJUDICE, 10/19/2015. Dismissed- Settled
Defendant: CREST RESOURCES INC Disposed: DISMISSED - WITH PREJUDICE, 10/19/2015. Dismissed- Settled
Defendant: CREST RESOURCES INC Disposed: DISMISSED - WITH PREJUDICE, 10/19/2015. Dismissed- Settled
Defendant: CREST ENERGY LTD Disposed: DISMISSED - WITH PREJUDICE, 10/19/2015. Dismissed- Settled
Defendant: HUDGENS, GLENN Disposed: DISMISSED - WITH PREJUDICE, 10/19/2015. Dismissed- Settled
Defendant: CREST RESOURCES 2010 LLC Disposed: DISMISSED - WITH PREJUDICE, 10/19/2015. Dismissed- Settled
Defendant: CREST RESOURCES INC Disposed: DISMISSED - WITH PREJUDICE, 10/19/2015. Dismissed- Settled
Defendant: CREST ENERGY LTD Disposed: DISMISSED - WITH PREJUDICE, 10/19/2015. Dismissed- Settled
Defendant: HUDGENS, GLENN Disposed: DISMISSED - WITH PREJUDICE, 10/19/2015. Dismissed- Settled
Defendant: CREST RESOURCES 2010 LLC Disposed: DISMISSED - WITH PREJUDICE, 10/19/2015. Dismissed- Settled
Defendant: CREST RESOURCES INC Disposed: DISMISSED - WITH PREJUDICE, 10/19/2015. Dismissed- Settled
Defendant: CREST ENERGY LTD Disposed: DISMISSED - WITH PREJUDICE, 10/19/2015. Dismissed- Settled
Defendant: HUDGENS, GLENN Disposed: DISMISSED - WITH PREJUDICE, 10/19/2015. Dismissed- Settled
Defendant: CREST RESOURCES 2010 LLC Disposed: DISMISSED - WITH PREJUDICE, 10/19/2015. Dismissed- Settled
Defendant: CREST RESOURCES INC Disposed: DISMISSED - WITH PREJUDICE, 10/19/2015. Dismissed- Settled
Defendant: CREST ENERGY LTD Disposed: DISMISSED - WITH PREJUDICE, 10/19/2015. Dismissed- Settled
Defendant: HUDGENS, GLENN Disposed: DISMISSED - WITH PREJUDICE, 10/19/2015. Dismissed- Settled
Defendant: CREST RESOURCES 2010 LLC Disposed: DISMISSED - WITH PREJUDICE, 10/19/2015. Dismissed- Settled
Defendant: CREST RESOURCES INC Disposed: DISMISSED - WITH PREJUDICE, 10/19/2015. Dismissed- Settled
Defendant: CREST ENERGY LTD Disposed: DISMISSED - WITH PREJUDICE, 10/19/2015. Dismissed- Settled
Defendant: HUDGENS, GLENN Disposed: DISMISSED - WITH PREJUDICE, 10/19/2015. Dismissed- Settled
Defendant: CREST RESOURCES 2010 LLC Disposed: DISMISSED - WITH PREJUDICE, 10/19/2015. Dismissed- Settled
Defendant: CREST RESOURCES INC Disposed: DISMISSED - WITH PREJUDICE, 10/19/2015. Dismissed- Settled
Defendant: CREST ENERGY LTD Disposed: DISMISSED - WITH PREJUDICE, 10/19/2015. Dismissed- Settled
Defendant: HUDGENS, GLENN Disposed: DISMISSED - WITH PREJUDICE, 10/19/2015. Dismissed- Settled
Defendant: CREST RESOURCES 2010 LLC Disposed: DISMISSED - WITH PREJUDICE, 10/19/2015. Dismissed- Settled
Issue # 7. Issue: INJUNCTIVE RELIEF (OTHER)
Filed By: WHEELER PHOENIX INC
Filed Date: 04/30/2012
Party Name Disposition Information
Defendant: CREST RESOURCES INC Disposed: DISMISSED - WITH PREJUDICE, 10/19/2015. Dismissed- Settled
Defendant: CREST ENERGY LTD Disposed: DISMISSED - WITH PREJUDICE, 10/19/2015. Dismissed- Settled
Defendant: HUDGENS, GLENN Disposed: DISMISSED - WITH PREJUDICE, 10/19/2015. Dismissed- Settled
Defendant: CREST RESOURCES 2010 LLC Disposed: DISMISSED - WITH PREJUDICE, 10/19/2015. Dismissed- Settled
Defendant: CREST RESOURCES INC Disposed: DISMISSED - WITH PREJUDICE, 10/19/2015. Dismissed- Settled
Defendant: CREST ENERGY LTD Disposed: DISMISSED - WITH PREJUDICE, 10/19/2015. Dismissed- Settled
Defendant: HUDGENS, GLENN Disposed: DISMISSED - WITH PREJUDICE, 10/19/2015. Dismissed- Settled
Defendant: CREST RESOURCES 2010 LLC Disposed: DISMISSED - WITH PREJUDICE, 10/19/2015. Dismissed- Settled
Defendant: CREST RESOURCES INC Disposed: DISMISSED - WITH PREJUDICE, 10/19/2015. Dismissed- Settled
Defendant: CREST ENERGY LTD Disposed: DISMISSED - WITH PREJUDICE, 10/19/2015. Dismissed- Settled
Defendant: HUDGENS, GLENN Disposed: DISMISSED - WITH PREJUDICE, 10/19/2015. Dismissed- Settled
Defendant: CREST RESOURCES 2010 LLC Disposed: DISMISSED - WITH PREJUDICE, 10/19/2015. Dismissed- Settled
Defendant: CREST RESOURCES INC Disposed: DISMISSED - WITH PREJUDICE, 10/19/2015. Dismissed- Settled
Defendant: CREST ENERGY LTD Disposed: DISMISSED - WITH PREJUDICE, 10/19/2015. Dismissed- Settled
Defendant: HUDGENS, GLENN Disposed: DISMISSED - WITH PREJUDICE, 10/19/2015. Dismissed- Settled
Defendant: CREST RESOURCES 2010 LLC Disposed: DISMISSED - WITH PREJUDICE, 10/19/2015. Dismissed- Settled
Defendant: CREST RESOURCES INC Disposed: DISMISSED - WITH PREJUDICE, 10/19/2015. Dismissed- Settled
Defendant: CREST ENERGY LTD Disposed: DISMISSED - WITH PREJUDICE, 10/19/2015. Dismissed- Settled
Defendant: HUDGENS, GLENN Disposed: DISMISSED - WITH PREJUDICE, 10/19/2015. Dismissed- Settled
Defendant: CREST RESOURCES 2010 LLC Disposed: DISMISSED - WITH PREJUDICE, 10/19/2015. Dismissed- Settled
Defendant: CREST RESOURCES INC Disposed: DISMISSED - WITH PREJUDICE, 10/19/2015. Dismissed- Settled
Defendant: CREST ENERGY LTD Disposed: DISMISSED - WITH PREJUDICE, 10/19/2015. Dismissed- Settled
Defendant: HUDGENS, GLENN Disposed: DISMISSED - WITH PREJUDICE, 10/19/2015. Dismissed- Settled
Defendant: CREST RESOURCES 2010 LLC Disposed: DISMISSED - WITH PREJUDICE, 10/19/2015. Dismissed- Settled
Defendant: CREST RESOURCES INC Disposed: DISMISSED - WITH PREJUDICE, 10/19/2015. Dismissed- Settled
Defendant: CREST ENERGY LTD Disposed: DISMISSED - WITH PREJUDICE, 10/19/2015. Dismissed- Settled
Defendant: HUDGENS, GLENN Disposed: DISMISSED - WITH PREJUDICE, 10/19/2015. Dismissed- Settled
Defendant: CREST RESOURCES 2010 LLC Disposed: DISMISSED - WITH PREJUDICE, 10/19/2015. Dismissed- Settled
Issue # 8. Issue: ACCOUNTING (OTHER)
Filed By: SINGER BROS LLC
Filed Date: 04/30/2012
Party Name Disposition Information
Defendant: CREST RESOURCES 2010 LLC Disposed: DISMISSED - WITH PREJUDICE, 10/19/2015. Dismissed- Settled
Defendant: HUDGENS, GLENN Disposed: DISMISSED - WITH PREJUDICE, 10/19/2015. Dismissed- Settled
Defendant: CREST RESOURCES INC Disposed: DISMISSED - WITH PREJUDICE, 10/19/2015. Dismissed- Settled
Defendant: CREST ENERGY LTD Disposed: DISMISSED - WITH PREJUDICE, 10/19/2015. Dismissed- Settled
Defendant: CREST RESOURCES INC Disposed: DISMISSED - WITH PREJUDICE, 10/19/2015. Dismissed- Settled
Defendant: CREST ENERGY LTD Disposed: DISMISSED - WITH PREJUDICE, 10/19/2015. Dismissed- Settled
Defendant: HUDGENS, GLENN Disposed: DISMISSED - WITH PREJUDICE, 10/19/2015. Dismissed- Settled
Defendant: CREST RESOURCES 2010 LLC Disposed: DISMISSED - WITH PREJUDICE, 10/19/2015. Dismissed- Settled
Defendant: CREST RESOURCES INC Disposed: DISMISSED - WITH PREJUDICE, 10/19/2015. Dismissed- Settled
Defendant: CREST ENERGY LTD Disposed: DISMISSED - WITH PREJUDICE, 10/19/2015. Dismissed- Settled
Defendant: HUDGENS, GLENN Disposed: DISMISSED - WITH PREJUDICE, 10/19/2015. Dismissed- Settled
Defendant: CREST RESOURCES 2010 LLC Disposed: DISMISSED - WITH PREJUDICE, 10/19/2015. Dismissed- Settled
Defendant: CREST RESOURCES INC Disposed: DISMISSED - WITH PREJUDICE, 10/19/2015. Dismissed- Settled
Defendant: CREST ENERGY LTD Disposed: DISMISSED - WITH PREJUDICE, 10/19/2015. Dismissed- Settled
Defendant: HUDGENS, GLENN Disposed: DISMISSED - WITH PREJUDICE, 10/19/2015. Dismissed- Settled
Defendant: CREST RESOURCES 2010 LLC Disposed: DISMISSED - WITH PREJUDICE, 10/19/2015. Dismissed- Settled
Defendant: CREST RESOURCES INC Disposed: DISMISSED - WITH PREJUDICE, 10/19/2015. Dismissed- Settled
Defendant: CREST ENERGY LTD Disposed: DISMISSED - WITH PREJUDICE, 10/19/2015. Dismissed- Settled
Defendant: HUDGENS, GLENN Disposed: DISMISSED - WITH PREJUDICE, 10/19/2015. Dismissed- Settled
Defendant: CREST RESOURCES 2010 LLC Disposed: DISMISSED - WITH PREJUDICE, 10/19/2015. Dismissed- Settled
Defendant: CREST RESOURCES INC Disposed: DISMISSED - WITH PREJUDICE, 10/19/2015. Dismissed- Settled
Defendant: CREST ENERGY LTD Disposed: DISMISSED - WITH PREJUDICE, 10/19/2015. Dismissed- Settled
Defendant: HUDGENS, GLENN Disposed: DISMISSED - WITH PREJUDICE, 10/19/2015. Dismissed- Settled
Defendant: CREST RESOURCES 2010 LLC Disposed: DISMISSED - WITH PREJUDICE, 10/19/2015. Dismissed- Settled
Defendant: CREST RESOURCES INC Disposed: DISMISSED - WITH PREJUDICE, 10/19/2015. Dismissed- Settled
Defendant: CREST ENERGY LTD Disposed: DISMISSED - WITH PREJUDICE, 10/19/2015. Dismissed- Settled
Defendant: HUDGENS, GLENN Disposed: DISMISSED - WITH PREJUDICE, 10/19/2015. Dismissed- Settled
Defendant: CREST RESOURCES 2010 LLC Disposed: DISMISSED - WITH PREJUDICE, 10/19/2015. Dismissed- Settled

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:

Comments:



Find a Lawyer

Subject:
City:
State:
 

Find a Case

Subject:
County:
State: