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 and Related 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.

In addition, the Company received a DOJ subpoena and a voluntary document request from the SEC seeking information on our accounting methodology for the acquisition and classification of oil and natural gas properties and related matters. Chesapeake has engaged in discussions with the DOJ and SEC about these matters. On October 4, 2016, a securities class action was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma against the Company and certain current directors and officers of the Company alleging, among other things, violations of federal securities laws for purported misstatements in the Company’s SEC filings and other public disclosures regarding the Company’s accounting for the acquisition and classification of oil and natural gas properties. The lawsuit seeks certification as a class action, damages, attorneys’ fees and other costs.

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 revolving credit facility) to stay execution of the judgment while appellate proceedings are pending. The Company accrued a loss contingency of $100 million for this matter in 2014 and an additional $339 million in 2015. On September 15, 2016, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the trial court’s ruling. We intend to seek a rehearing en banc of the appeal by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit and may file a petition for writ of certiorari with the United States Supreme Court.

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, Oklahoma, Kentucky, Louisiana 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 to move a substantial portion of these lawsuits to the 348th District Court of Tarrant County for pre-trial purposes (MDL). These lawsuits, which primarily relate to the Barnett Shale, generally allege that Chesapeake underpaid royalties by making improper deductions and using incorrect production volumes. Chesapeake entered into a settlement agreement with MDL plaintiffs representing over 97% of the hydrocarbons at issue by volume and, on July 22, 2016, the plaintiffs who accepted the settlement filed to dismiss such lawsuits. Chesapeake funded the settlement amount of approximately $29 million in cash and signed a $10 million, three-year promissory note in July 2016, which is accrued for as of September 30, 2016. Additional plaintiffs are continuing to accept the settlement on a rolling basis. Chesapeake expects that additional lawsuits filed by plaintiffs not participating in the settlement will continue to be pursued and that new plaintiffs will file other lawsuits making similar allegations.

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. In response to Chesapeake’s preliminary objections, the Office of Attorney General filed a second amended complaint on May 3, 2016, alleging further violations of the UTPCPL based upon alleged predicate violations of the federal Sherman Act and the Federal Trade Commission Act. Chesapeake removed the case to the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania on May 27, 2016. On August 15, 2016, the federal court remanded the case to state court.

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 for an unlawful market allocation agreement for mineral rights. 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 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.

The Company is also defending lawsuits alleging various violations of the Sherman Antitrust Act and state antitrust laws. In 2016, putative class action lawsuits have been filed in the United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma and in Oklahoma state courts, and an individual lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court of Kansas, in each case against the Company and other defendants. The lawsuits generally allege that, since 2007 and continuing through April 2013, 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. 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 (the 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 the 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 the 2021 Notes. In June 2016, the lawsuit was transferred to the United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma, and in October 2016, the Company filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. A hearing date for the motion has not been set.

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