Contingencies and Commitments (Note)

3 Months Ended

Mar. 31, 2016

Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]

Contingencies

Litigation and Regulatory Proceedings

The Company is involved in a number of litigation and regulatory proceedings (including those described below). Many of these proceedings are in early stages, and many of them seek or may seek damages and penalties, the amount of which is indeterminate. We estimate and provide for potential losses that may arise out of litigation and regulatory proceedings to the extent that such losses are probable and can be reasonably estimated. Significant judgment is required in making these estimates and our final liabilities may ultimately be materially different. Our total estimated liability in respect of litigation and regulatory proceedings is determined on a case-by-case basis and represents an estimate of probable losses after considering, among other factors, the progress of each case or proceeding, our experience and the experience of others in similar cases or proceedings, and the opinions and views of legal counsel. We account for legal defense costs in the period the costs are incurred.

2016 Shareholder Litigation. On April 19, 2016, a derivative action was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma against the Company and current and former directors and officers of the Company alleging, among other things, violation of and conspiracy to violate the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, breach of fiduciary duties, waste of corporate assets, gross mismanagement and violations of Sections 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 of the Exchange Act related to actions allegedly taken by such persons since 2008. The lawsuit seeks certification as a class action, damages, attorneys’ fees and other costs.

Regulatory Proceedings. The Company has received, from the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) and certain state governmental agencies and authorities, subpoenas and demands for documents, information and testimony in connection with investigations into possible violations of federal and state antitrust laws relating to our purchase and lease of oil and natural gas rights in various states. The Company also has received DOJ, U.S. Postal Service and state subpoenas seeking information on the Company’s royalty payment practices. Chesapeake has engaged in discussions with the DOJ, U.S. Postal Service and state agency representatives and continues to respond to such subpoenas and demands.

Redemption of 2019 Notes. As previously disclosed in the 2015 Form 10-K, in connection with the litigation related to the Company’s notice issued on March 15, 2013 to redeem all of the 2019 Notes at par (plus accrued interest through the redemption date) pursuant to the special early redemption provision of the supplemental indenture governing the 2019 Notes, the Company filed a notice of appeal on July 27, 2015 of an amended judgment entered on July 17, 2015 by the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York awarding the Trustee for the 2019 Notes $380 million plus prejudgment interest in the amount of $59 million. The Company posted a supersedeas bond in the amount of $461 million (reflected as an outstanding letter of credit under the Company’s credit facility) to stay execution of the judgment while appellate proceedings are pending. We accrued a loss contingency of $100 million for this matter in 2014, and we accrued an additional $339 million in 2015.

Business Operations. Chesapeake is involved in various other lawsuits and disputes incidental to its business operations, including commercial disputes, personal injury claims, royalty claims, property damage claims and contract actions. With regard to contract actions, various mineral or leasehold owners have filed lawsuits against us seeking specific performance to require us to acquire their oil and natural gas interests and pay acreage bonus payments, damages based on breach of contract and/or, in certain cases, punitive damages based on alleged fraud. The Company has successfully defended a number of these failure-to-close cases in various courts, has settled and resolved other such cases and disputes and believes that its remaining loss exposure for these claims will not have a material adverse effect on the Company’s consolidated financial position, results of operations or cash flows.

Regarding royalty claims, Chesapeake and other natural gas producers have been named in various lawsuits alleging royalty underpayment. The suits against us allege, among other things, that we used below-market prices, made improper deductions, used improper measurement techniques and/or entered into arrangements with affiliates that resulted in underpayment of royalties in connection with the production and sale of natural gas and NGL. Plaintiffs have varying royalty provisions in their respective leases, oil and gas law varies from state to state, and royalty owners and producers differ in their interpretation of the legal effect of lease provisions governing royalty calculations. The Company has resolved a number of these claims through negotiated settlements of past and future royalties and has prevailed in various other lawsuits. We are currently defending lawsuits seeking damages with respect to royalty underpayment in various states, including, but not limited to, Texas, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Louisiana, Oklahoma and Arkansas. These lawsuits include cases filed by individual royalty owners and putative class actions, some of which seek to certify a statewide class. The Company also has received DOJ, U.S. Postal Service and state subpoenas seeking information on the Company’s royalty payment practices.

Chesapeake is defending numerous lawsuits filed by individual royalty owners alleging royalty underpayment with respect to properties in Texas. On April 8, 2015, Chesapeake obtained a transfer order from the Texas Multidistrict Litigation Panel to transfer a substantial portion of these lawsuits filed since June 2014 to the 348th District Court of Tarrant County for pre-trial purposes. On February 12, 2016, Chesapeake filed a motion to change venue for several other lawsuits to Harris County, or alternatively, to Tarrant County. The parties subsequently agreed to transfer such other lawsuits to Tarrant County, with Chesapeake reserving the right to request transfer of any other such lawsuits to Harris County. These lawsuits, which primarily relate to the Barnett Shale, generally allege that Chesapeake underpaid royalties by making improper deductions and using incorrect production volumes. In addition to allegations of breach of contract, a number of these lawsuits allege fraud, conspiracy, joint venture and antitrust violations by Chesapeake. We expect that additional lawsuits will be filed by new plaintiffs making similar allegations. The lawsuits seek direct damages in varying amounts, together with exemplary damages, attorneys’ fees, costs and interest.

On December 9, 2015, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, by the Office of Attorney General, filed a lawsuit in the Bradford County Court of Common Pleas related to royalty underpayment and lease acquisition and accounting practices with respect to properties in Pennsylvania. The lawsuit, which primarily relates to the Marcellus Shale and Utica Shale, alleges that Chesapeake violated the Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law (UTPCPL) by making improper deductions and entering into arrangements with affiliates that resulted in underpayment of royalties. The lawsuit seeks statutory restitution, civil penalties and costs, as well as temporary injunction from exploration and drilling activities in Pennsylvania until restitution, penalties and costs have been paid and permanent injunction from further violations of the UTPCPL. On February 8, 2016, the Office of Attorney General amended the complaint to, among other things, add an additional UTPCPL claim and antitrust claim alleging that a joint exploration agreement to which Chesapeake is a party established unlawful market allocation for the acquisition of leases. Chesapeake filed preliminary objections to the amended complaint on April 13, 2016.

Putative statewide class actions in Pennsylvania and Ohio and purported class arbitrations in Pennsylvania have been filed on behalf of royalty owners asserting various claims for damages related to alleged underpayment of royalties as a result of the Company’s divestiture of substantially all of its midstream business and most of its gathering assets in 2012 and 2013. These cases include claims for violation of and conspiracy to violate the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act and one of the cases includes claims of intentional interference with contractual relations and violations of antitrust laws related to purported markets for gas mineral rights, operating rights and gas gathering sources. We have not accrued a loss contingency for any of the Pennsylvania and Ohio matters seeking class certification.

We believe losses are reasonably possible in certain of the pending royalty cases for which we have not accrued a loss contingency, but we are currently unable to estimate an amount or range of loss or the impact the actions could have on our future results of operations or cash flows. Uncertainties in pending royalty cases generally include the complex nature of the claims and defenses, the potential size of the class in class actions, the scope and types of the properties and agreements involved, and the applicable production years.

In March 2016, three putative class action lawsuits were filed in the United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma against the Company and other defendants. The lawsuits allege that, since December 2007, and continuing through March 2012, the defendants conspired to rig bids and depress the market for the purchases of oil and natural gas leasehold interests and properties in the Anadarko Basin containing producing oil and natural gas wells, in violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act. The lawsuits seek damages, attorney’s fees, costs and interest, as well as enjoinment from adopting practices or plans which would restrain competition in a similar manner as alleged in the lawsuits.

In April 2016, a class action lawsuit on behalf of holders of the Company’s 6.875% Senior Notes due 2020 (2020 Notes) and 6.125% Senior Notes due 2021 (2021 Notes) was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York relating to the Company’s December 2015 debt exchange, whereby the Company privately exchanged newly issued 8.00% Senior Secured Second Lien Notes due 2022 (Second Lien Notes) for certain outstanding senior unsecured notes and contingent convertible notes. The lawsuit alleges that the Company violated the Trust Indenture Act of 1939 and the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing by benefiting themselves and a minority of noteholders who are qualified institutional buyers (QIBs). According to the lawsuit, as a result of the Company’s private debt exchange in which only QIBs (and non-U.S. persons under Regulation S) were eligible to participate, the Company unjustly enriched itself at the expense of class members by reducing indebtedness and reducing the value of the 2020 Notes and 2022 Notes. The lawsuit seeks damages and attorney’s fees, in addition to declaratory relief that the debt exchange and the liens created for the benefit of the Second Lien Notes are null and void and that the debt exchange effectively resulted in a default under the indentures for the 2020 Notes and 2021 Notes.

Based on management’s current assessment, we are of the opinion that no pending or threatened lawsuit or dispute relating to the Company’s business operations is likely to have a material adverse effect on its future consolidated financial position, results of operations or cash flows. The final resolution of such matters could exceed amounts accrued, however, and actual results could differ materially from management’s estimates.

Environmental Contingencies

The nature of the oil and gas business carries with it certain environmental risks for Chesapeake and its subsidiaries. Chesapeake has implemented various policies, programs, procedures, training and auditing to reduce and mitigate such environmental risks. Chesapeake conducts periodic reviews, on a company-wide basis, to assess changes in our environmental risk profile. Environmental reserves are established for environmental liabilities for which economic losses are probable and reasonably estimable. We manage our exposure to environmental liabilities in acquisitions by using an evaluation process that seeks to identify pre-existing contamination or compliance concerns and address the potential liability. Depending on the extent of an identified environmental concern, Chesapeake may, among other things, exclude a property from the transaction, require the seller to remediate the property to our satisfaction in an acquisition or agree to assume liability for the remediation of the property

Commitments Contingencies and Guarantees

Commitments

Gathering, Processing and Transportation Agreements

We have contractual commitments with midstream service companies and pipeline carriers for future gathering, processing and transportation of oil, natural gas and NGL to move certain of our production to market. Working interest owners and royalty interest owners, where appropriate, will be responsible for their proportionate share of these costs. Commitments related to gathering, processing and transportation agreements are not recorded in the accompanying condensed consolidated balance sheets; however, they are reflected as adjustments to oil, natural gas and NGL sales prices used in our proved reserves estimates.

The aggregate undiscounted commitments under our gathering, processing and transportation agreements, excluding any reimbursement from working interest and royalty interest owners, credits for third-party volumes or future costs under cost-of-service agreements, are presented below.



	March 31, 2016
	($ in millions)
2016	$	1,383
2017	1,880
2018	1,676
2019	1,378
2020	1,051
2021 – 2099	6,696
Total	$	14,064

In addition, we have entered into long-term agreements for certain natural gas gathering and related services within specified acreage dedication areas in exchange for cost-of-service based fees redetermined annually or tiered fees based on volumes delivered relative to scheduled volumes. Future gathering fees vary with the applicable agreement. One of these agreements (in the Anadarko Basin in northwestern Oklahoma and the Texas panhandle) contains cost-of-service based fees that are redetermined annually through 2019. The annual upward or downward fee adjustment for this contract is capped at 15% of the then-current fees at the time of redetermination. To the extent the actual rate of return on capital expended by the counterparty over the term of the agreement differs from the applicable rate of return, a payment is due to (from) the midstream service company.

Drilling Contracts

We have contracts with various drilling contractors to utilize drilling services with terms ranging from three months to three years at market-based pricing. These commitments are not recorded in the accompanying condensed consolidated balance sheets. As of March 31, 2016, the aggregate undiscounted minimum future payments under these drilling service commitments were approximately $218 million.

Pressure Pumping Contracts

We have an agreement for pressure pumping services. Throughout the term of the agreement, which expires in June 2017, the services agreement requires us to utilize, at market-based pricing, the lesser of (i) five pressure pumping crews through June 30, 2016 and three pressure pumping crews through June 30, 2017 or (ii) 50% of the total number of all pressure pumping crews working for us in all of our operating regions during the respective year. We are also required to utilize the pressure pumping services for a minimum number of fracture stages as set forth in the agreement. We are entitled to terminate the agreement in certain situations, including if the contractor fails to provide the overall quality of service provided by similar service providers. As of March 31, 2016, the aggregate undiscounted minimum future payments under this agreement were approximately $161 million.

Drilling Commitments

We have committed to drill wells for the benefit of Chesapeake Granite Wash Trust (the Trust). In connection with the Trust’s initial public offering, we conveyed royalty interests to the Trust that entitle the Trust to receive (i) 90% of the proceeds (after deducting certain post-production expenses and any applicable taxes) that we receive from the production of hydrocarbons from 69 then-producing wells, and (ii) 50% of the proceeds (after deducting certain post-production expenses and any applicable taxes) in 118 development wells that have been or will be drilled on approximately 45,400 gross acres (29,000 net acres) in the Colony Granite Wash play in Washita County in the Anadarko Basin of western Oklahoma. Pursuant to the terms of a development agreement with the Trust, we are obligated to drill and complete, or cause to be drilled and completed, the development wells at our own expense prior to June 30, 2016, and the Trust is not responsible for any costs related to the drilling and completion of the development wells or any other operating or capital costs of the Trust properties. In addition, we granted to the Trust a lien on our remaining interests in the undeveloped properties that are subject to the development agreement in order to secure our drilling obligation to the Trust, although the maximum amount recoverable by the Trust under the lien was limited to $263 million initially and is proportionately reduced as we fulfill our drilling obligation over time. As of March 31, 2016, we had drilled and completed or caused to be drilled and completed approximately 106 development wells, as calculated under the development agreement, and the maximum amount recoverable under the drilling support lien was approximately $27 million. We anticipate that we will fulfill our drilling obligation on or before June 30, 2016. See Note 10 for further discussion of the Trust.

Oil, Natural Gas and NGL Purchase Commitments

We commit to purchase oil, natural gas and NGL from other owners in the properties we operate, including owners associated with our volumetric production payment (VPP) transactions. Production purchases under these arrangements are based on market prices at the time of production, and the purchased oil, natural gas and NGL are resold at market prices. See Volumetric Production Payments in Note 9 for further discussion of our VPP transactions.

Net Acreage Maintenance Commitments

Under the terms of our Utica Shale joint venture agreements with Total S.A., we are required to extend, renew or replace expiring joint leasehold, at our cost, to ensure that the net acreage is maintained in certain designated areas as of a future measurement date.

Other Commitments

As part of our normal course of business, we enter into various agreements providing, or otherwise arranging for, financial or performance assurances to third parties on behalf of our wholly owned guarantor subsidiaries. These agreements may include future payment obligations or commitments regarding operational performance that effectively guarantee our subsidiaries’ future performance.

In connection with acquisitions and divestitures, our purchase and sale agreements generally provide indemnification to the counterparty for liabilities incurred as a result of a breach of a representation or warranty by the indemnifying party and/or other specified matters. These indemnifications generally have a discrete term and are intended to protect the parties against risks that are difficult to predict or cannot be quantified at the time of entering into or consummating a particular transaction. For divestitures of oil and natural gas properties, our purchase and sale agreements may require the return of a portion of the proceeds we receive as a result of uncured title defects.

Certain of our oil and natural gas properties are burdened by non-operating interests such as royalty and overriding royalty interests, including overriding royalty interests sold through our VPP transactions. As the holder of the working interest from which these interests have been created, we have the responsibility to bear the cost of developing and producing the reserves attributable to these interests. See Volumetric Production Payments in Note 9 for further discussion of our VPP transactions.

While executing our strategic priorities, we have incurred certain cash charges, including contract termination charges, financing extinguishment costs and charges for unused natural gas transportation and gathering capacity. As we continue to focus on our strategic priorities, we may take certain actions that reduce financial leverage and complexity, and we may incur additional cash and noncash charges.