XML 192 R21.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT v2.4.0.8
Commitments and Contingencies
 3 Months Ended 6 Months Ended 12 Months Ended
Mar. 31, 2013
Jun. 30, 2013
Dec. 31, 2012
Loss Contingencies [Line Items]      
Commitments and Contingencies  
Contingencies
On March 21, 2013, a purported stockholder class action captioned Nancy P. Assad Trust v. Berry Petroleum Co., et al. was filed in the District Court for the City and County of Denver, Colorado, No. 13-CV-31365. The action names as defendants Berry, the members of its board of directors, Bacchus HoldCo, Inc., a direct wholly owned subsidiary of Berry (“HoldCo”), Bacchus Merger Sub, Inc., a direct wholly owned subsidiary of HoldCo (“Bacchus Merger Sub”), LinnCo, LINN Energy and Linn Acquisition Company, LLC, a direct wholly owned subsidiary of LinnCo (“LinnCo Merger Sub”). On April 5, 2013, an amended complaint was filed, which alleges that the individual defendants breached their fiduciary duties in connection with the transactions by engaging in an unfair sales process that resulted in an unfair price for Berry, by failing to disclose all material information regarding the transactions, and that the entity defendants aided and abetted those breaches of fiduciary duty. The amended complaint seeks a declaration that the transactions are unlawful and unenforceable, an order directing the individual defendants to comply with their fiduciary duties, an injunction against consummation of the transactions, or, in the event they are completed, rescission of the transactions, an award of fees and costs, including attorneys’ and experts’ fees and expenses, and other relief. On May 21, 2013, the Colorado District Court stayed and administratively closed the Nancy P. Assad Trust action in favor of the Hall action described below that is pending in the Delaware Court of Chancery.
On April 12, 2013, a purported stockholder class action captioned David Hall v. Berry Petroleum Co., et al. was filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery, C.A. No. 8476-VCG. The complaint names as defendants Berry, the members of its board of directors, HoldCo, Bacchus Merger Sub, LinnCo, LINN Energy and LinnCo Merger Sub. The complaint alleges that the individual defendants breached their fiduciary duties in connection with the transactions by engaging in an unfair sales process that resulted in an unfair price for Berry, by failing to disclose all material information regarding the transactions, and that the entity defendants aided and abetted those breaches of fiduciary duty. The complaint seeks a declaration that the transactions are unlawful and unenforceable, an order directing the individual defendants to comply with their fiduciary duties, an injunction against consummation of the transactions, or, in the event they are completed, rescission of the transactions, an award of fees and costs, including attorneys’ and experts’ fees and expenses, and other relief. After expedited discovery, the plaintiffs in this case made a settlement proposal and the parties are currently engaged in settlement discussions. The Company is unable to estimate a possible loss, or range of possible loss, if any, at this time.
On July 9, 2013, Anthony Booth, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court, Southern District of Texas, against LINN Energy, Mark E. Ellis, Kolja Rockov, and David B. Rottino (the “Booth Action”). On July 18, 2013, the Catherine A. Fisher Trust, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court, Southern District of Texas, against the same defendants (the “Fisher Action”). On July 17, 2013, Don Gentry, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court, Southern District of Texas, against LINN Energy, LinnCo, Mark E. Ellis, Kolja Rockov, David B. Rottino, George A. Alcorn, David D. Dunlap, Terrence S. Jacobs, Michael C. Linn, Joseph P. McCoy, Jeffrey C. Swoveland, and the various underwriters for LinnCo’s initial public offering (the “Gentry Action”) (the Booth Action, Fisher Action, and Gentry Action together, the “Texas Federal Actions”). The Texas Federal Actions each assert claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”) based on allegations that the Company made false or misleading statements relating to its hedging strategy, the cash flow available for distribution to unitholders, and the Company’s energy production. The Gentry Action asserts additional claims under Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 based on alleged misstatements relating to these issues in the prospectus and registration statement for LinnCo’s initial public offering. The cases are in their preliminary stages and it is possible that additional similar actions could be filed.  As a result, the Company is unable to estimate a possible loss, or range of possible loss, if any.
On July 10, 2013, David Adrian Luciano, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court, Southern District of New York, against LINN Energy, LinnCo, Mark E. Ellis, Kolja Rockov, David B. Rottino, George A. Alcorn, David D. Dunlap, Terrence S. Jacobs, Michael C. Linn, Joseph P. McCoy, Jeffrey C. Swoveland, and the various underwriters for LinnCo’s initial public offering (the “Luciano Action”). On July 12, 2013, Frank Donio, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court, Southern District of New York, against the same defendants (the “Donio Action”). On July 19, 2013, John Cottrell, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court, Southern District of New York, against LINN Energy, Mark E. Ellis, Kolja Rockov, and David B. Rottino (the “Cottrell Action”). On July 23, 2013, Kevin Feldman, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court, Southern District of New York, against the same defendants as in the Luciano Action (the “Feldman Action”) (the Luciano Action, Donio Action, Cottrell Action, and Feldman Action together, the “New York Federal Actions”). The Donio Action and the Cottrell Action assert claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act based on allegations that the Company made false or misleading statements relating to its hedging strategy, the cash flow available for distribution to unitholders, and the Company’s energy production. The Luciano Action and the Feldman Action assert claims under Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 based on alleged misstatements relating to these issues in the prospectus and registration statement for LinnCo’s initial public offering. The cases are in their preliminary stages and it is possible that additional similar actions could be filed. As a result, the Company is unable to estimate a possible loss, or range of possible loss, if any.
On July 10, 2013, Judy Mesirov, derivatively on behalf of nominal defendant LINN Energy, filed a shareholder derivative petition against Mark E. Ellis, Kolja Rockov, David B. Rottino, Arden L. Walker, Jr., Charlene A. Ripley, Michael C. Linn, Joseph P. McCoy, George A. Alcorn, Terrence S. Jacobs, David D. Dunlap, Jeffrey C. Swoveland, and Linda M. Stephens in the District Court of Harris County, Texas (the “Mesirov Action”). On July 12, 2013, John Peters, derivatively on behalf of nominal defendant LINN Energy, filed a shareholder derivative petition against many of the same defendants in the District Court of Harris County, Texas (the “Peters Action”) (the Mesirov Action and Peters Action together, the “Texas Derivative Actions”). The Texas Derivative Actions assert derivative claims on behalf of LINN Energy against the individual defendants for alleged breaches of fiduciary duty, waste of corporate assets, mismanagement, abuse of control, and unjust enrichment based on factual allegations similar to those in the Texas Federal Actions and the New York Federal Actions. The cases are in their preliminary stages and it is possible that additional similar actions could be filed in the District Court of Harris County, Texas, or in other jurisdictions. As a result, the Company is unable to estimate a possible loss, or range of possible loss, if any.
  
Linn Energy, LLC [Member]
      
Loss Contingencies [Line Items]      
Commitments and Contingencies
Commitments and Contingencies
The Company has been named as a defendant in a number of lawsuits, including claims from royalty owners related to disputed royalty payments and royalty valuations. The Company has established reserves that management currently believes are adequate to provide for potential liabilities based upon its evaluation of these matters. For a certain statewide class action royalty payment dispute where a reserve has not yet been established, the Company has denied that it has any liability on the claims and has raised arguments and defenses that, if accepted by the court, will result in no loss to the Company. Discovery related to class certification has concluded. Briefing and the hearing on class certification have been deferred by court order pending the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals’ resolution of interlocutory appeals of two unrelated class certification orders. As a result, the Company is unable to estimate a possible loss, or range of possible loss, if any. In addition, the Company is involved in various other disputes arising in the ordinary course of business. The Company is not currently a party to any litigation or pending claims that it believes would have a material adverse effect on its overall business, financial position, results of operations or liquidity; however, cash flow could be significantly impacted in the reporting periods in which such matters are resolved.
Commitments and Contingencies
The Company has been named as a defendant in a number of lawsuits, including claims from royalty owners related to disputed royalty payments and royalty valuations. The Company has established reserves that management currently believes are adequate to provide for potential liabilities based upon its evaluation of these matters. For a certain statewide class action royalty payment dispute where a reserve has not yet been established, the Company has denied that it has any liability on the claims and has raised arguments and defenses that, if accepted by the court, will result in no loss to the Company. Discovery related to class certification has concluded. Briefing and the hearing on class certification have been deferred by court order pending the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals’ resolution of interlocutory appeals of two unrelated class certification orders. As a result, the Company is unable to estimate a possible loss, or range of possible loss, if any. In addition, the Company is involved in various other disputes arising in the ordinary course of business. The Company is not currently a party to any litigation or pending claims that it believes would have a material adverse effect on its overall business, financial position, results of operations or liquidity; however, cash flow could be significantly impacted in the reporting periods in which such matters are resolved.
On March 21, 2013, a purported stockholder class action captioned Nancy P. Assad Trust v. Berry Petroleum Co., et al. was filed in the District Court for the City and County of Denver, Colorado, No. 13-CV-31365. The action names as defendants Berry, the members of its board of directors, Bacchus HoldCo, Inc., a direct wholly owned subsidiary of Berry (“HoldCo”), Bacchus Merger Sub, Inc., a direct wholly owned subsidiary of HoldCo (“Bacchus Merger Sub”), LinnCo, LINN Energy and Linn Acquisition Company, LLC, a direct wholly owned subsidiary of LinnCo (“LinnCo Merger Sub”). On April 5, 2013, an amended complaint was filed, which alleges that the individual defendants breached their fiduciary duties in connection with the transactions by engaging in an unfair sales process that resulted in an unfair price for Berry, by failing to disclose all material information regarding the transactions, and that the entity defendants aided and abetted those breaches of fiduciary duty. The amended complaint seeks a declaration that the transactions are unlawful and unenforceable, an order directing the individual defendants to comply with their fiduciary duties, an injunction against consummation of the transactions, or, in the event they are completed, rescission of the transactions, an award of fees and costs, including attorneys’ and experts’ fees and expenses, and other relief. On May 21, 2013, the Colorado District Court stayed and administratively closed the Nancy P. Assad Trust action in favor of the Hall action described below that is pending in the Delaware Court of Chancery.
On April 12, 2013, a purported stockholder class action captioned David Hall v. Berry Petroleum Co., et al. was filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery, C.A. No. 8476-VCG. The complaint names as defendants Berry, the members of its board of directors, HoldCo, Bacchus Merger Sub, LinnCo, LINN Energy and LinnCo Merger Sub. The complaint alleges that the individual defendants breached their fiduciary duties in connection with the transactions by engaging in an unfair sales process that resulted in an unfair price for Berry, by failing to disclose all material information regarding the transactions, and that the entity defendants aided and abetted those breaches of fiduciary duty. The complaint seeks a declaration that the transactions are unlawful and unenforceable, an order directing the individual defendants to comply with their fiduciary duties, an injunction against consummation of the transactions, or, in the event they are completed, rescission of the transactions, an award of fees and costs, including attorneys’ and experts’ fees and expenses, and other relief. After expedited discovery, the plaintiffs in this case made a settlement proposal and the parties are currently engaged in settlement discussions. The Company is unable to estimate a possible loss, or range of possible loss, if any, at this time.
On July 9, 2013, Anthony Booth, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court, Southern District of Texas, against LINN Energy, Mark E. Ellis, Kolja Rockov, and David B. Rottino (the “Booth Action”). On July 18, 2013, the Catherine A. Fisher Trust, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court, Southern District of Texas, against the same defendants (the “Fisher Action”). On July 17, 2013, Don Gentry, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court, Southern District of Texas, against LINN Energy, LinnCo, Mark E. Ellis, Kolja Rockov, David B. Rottino, George A. Alcorn, David D. Dunlap, Terrence S. Jacobs, Michael C. Linn, Joseph P. McCoy, Jeffrey C. Swoveland, and the various underwriters for LinnCo’s initial public offering (the “Gentry Action”) (the Booth Action, Fisher Action, and Gentry Action together, the “Texas Federal Actions”). The Texas Federal Actions each assert claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”) based on allegations that the Company made false or misleading statements relating to its hedging strategy, the cash flow available for distribution to unitholders, and the Company’s energy production. The Gentry Action asserts additional claims under Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 based on alleged misstatements relating to these issues in the prospectus and registration statement for LinnCo’s initial public offering. The cases are in their preliminary stages and it is possible that additional similar actions could be filed.  As a result, the Company is unable to estimate a possible loss, or range of possible loss, if any.
On July 10, 2013, David Adrian Luciano, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court, Southern District of New York, against LINN Energy, LinnCo, Mark E. Ellis, Kolja Rockov, David B. Rottino, George A. Alcorn, David D. Dunlap, Terrence S. Jacobs, Michael C. Linn, Joseph P. McCoy, Jeffrey C. Swoveland, and the various underwriters for LinnCo’s initial public offering (the “Luciano Action”). On July 12, 2013, Frank Donio, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court, Southern District of New York, against the same defendants (the “Donio Action”). On July 19, 2013, John Cottrell, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court, Southern District of New York, against LINN Energy, Mark E. Ellis, Kolja Rockov, and David B. Rottino (the “Cottrell Action”). On July 23, 2013, Kevin Feldman, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court, Southern District of New York, against the same defendants as in the Luciano Action (the “Feldman Action”) (the Luciano Action, Donio Action, Cottrell Action, and Feldman Action together, the “New York Federal Actions”). The Donio Action and the Cottrell Action assert claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act based on allegations that the Company made false or misleading statements relating to its hedging strategy, the cash flow available for distribution to unitholders, and the Company’s energy production. The Luciano Action and the Feldman Action assert claims under Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 based on alleged misstatements relating to these issues in the prospectus and registration statement for LinnCo’s initial public offering. The cases are in their preliminary stages and it is possible that additional similar actions could be filed. As a result, the Company is unable to estimate a possible loss, or range of possible loss, if any.
On July 10, 2013, Judy Mesirov, derivatively on behalf of nominal defendant LINN Energy, filed a shareholder derivative petition against Mark E. Ellis, Kolja Rockov, David B. Rottino, Arden L. Walker, Jr., Charlene A. Ripley, Michael C. Linn, Joseph P. McCoy, George A. Alcorn, Terrence S. Jacobs, David D. Dunlap, Jeffrey C. Swoveland, and Linda M. Stephens in the District Court of Harris County, Texas (the “Mesirov Action”). On July 12, 2013, John Peters, derivatively on behalf of nominal defendant LINN Energy, filed a shareholder derivative petition against many of the same defendants in the District Court of Harris County, Texas (the “Peters Action”) (the Mesirov Action and Peters Action together, the “Texas Derivative Actions”). The Texas Derivative Actions assert derivative claims on behalf of LINN Energy against the individual defendants for alleged breaches of fiduciary duty, waste of corporate assets, mismanagement, abuse of control, and unjust enrichment based on factual allegations similar to those in the Texas Federal Actions and the New York Federal Actions. The cases are in their preliminary stages and it is possible that additional similar actions could be filed in the District Court of Harris County, Texas, or in other jurisdictions. As a result, the Company is unable to estimate a possible loss, or range of possible loss, if any.
In 2008, Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. and Lehman Brothers Commodity Services Inc. (together “Lehman”), filed voluntary petitions for reorganization under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code with the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York. In March 2011, the Company and Lehman entered into Termination Agreements under which the Company was granted general unsecured claims against Lehman in the amount of $51 million (the “Company Claim”). In December 2011, a Chapter 11 Plan (“Lehman Plan”) was approved by the Bankruptcy Court. Based on the recovery estimates described in the approved disclosure statement relating to the Lehman Plan, the Company expects to ultimately receive a substantial portion of the Company Claim. In April 2012, an initial distribution under the Lehman Plan of approximately $25 million was received by the Company resulting in a gain of approximately $18 million, and in April 2013, the Company received approximately $5 million of the Company Claim, both of which are included in “gains on oil and natural gas derivatives” on the condensed consolidated statements of operations. In the aggregate, the Company has received approximately $33 million, including approximately $3 million received in October 2012, of the Company Claim and additional distributions are expected to occur in the future.
Commitments and Contingencies
The Company has been named as a defendant in a number of lawsuits, including claims from royalty owners related to disputed royalty payments and royalty valuations. The Company has established reserves that management currently believes are adequate to provide for potential liabilities based upon its evaluation of these matters. For a certain statewide class action royalty payment dispute where a reserve has not yet been established, the Company has denied that it has any liability on the claims and has raised arguments and defenses that, if accepted by the court, will result in no loss to the Company. Discovery related to class certification has concluded. Briefing and the hearing on class certification have been deferred by court order pending the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals’ resolution of interlocutory appeals of two unrelated class certification orders. As a result, the Company is unable to estimate a possible loss, or range of possible loss, if any. In addition, the Company is involved in various other disputes arising in the ordinary course of business. The Company is not currently a party to any litigation or pending claims that it believes would have a material adverse effect on its overall business, financial position, results of operations or liquidity; however, cash flow could be significantly impacted in the reporting periods in which such matters are resolved.
In 2008, Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. and Lehman Brothers Commodity Services Inc. (together “Lehman”), filed voluntary petitions for reorganization under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code with the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York. In March 2011, the Company and Lehman entered into Termination Agreements under which the Company was granted general unsecured claims against Lehman in the amount of $51 million (the “Company Claim”). In December 2011, a Chapter 11 Plan (“Lehman Plan”) was approved by the Bankruptcy Court. Based on the recovery estimates described in the approved disclosure statement relating to the Lehman Plan, the Company expects to ultimately receive a substantial portion of the Company Claim. During 2012, the Company received approximately $28 million of the Company Claim under the Lehman Plan resulting in realized gains of approximately $22 million, which is included in “gains on oil and natural gas derivatives” on the consolidated statement of operations. Additional distributions may occur in the future.