Contingencies	3 Months Ended
Mar. 31, 2015
Contingencies [Abstract]
Contingencies	Note 16 – Contingencies Legal Proceedings Targa Shareholder Litigation On January 28, 2015, a public shareholder of Targa (the “TRC Plaintiff”) filed a putative class action and derivative lawsuit against Targa (as a nominal defendant), its directors at the time of the ATLS merger (the “TRC Director Defendants”), and ATLS (together with Targa and the TRC Director Defendants, the “TRC Lawsuit Defendants”). This lawsuit is styled Inspired Investors v. Joe Bob Perkins, et al., Cause No. 2015-04961, in the District Court of Harris County, Texas (the “TRC Lawsuit”). The TRC Plaintiff alleged a variety of causes of action challenging the ATLS merger and the disclosures related to the ATLS merger. Generally, the TRC Plaintiff alleged that the TRC Director Defendants breached their fiduciary duties. The TRC Plaintiff further alleged that the registration statement filed on January 22, 2015 fails to disclose allegedly material details concerning (i) Wells Fargo Securities, LLC’s and the TRC Director Defendants’ supposed conflicts of interest with respect to the ATLS merger, (ii) Targa’s financial projections, (iii) the background of the ATLS merger, and (iv) Wells Fargo Securities, LLC’s analysis of the ATLS merger. The TRC Plaintiff also alleged that Targa overpaid to acquire ATLS. Based on these allegations, the TRC Plaintiff sought to enjoin the TRC Lawsuit Defendants from proceeding with or consummating the ATLS merger. The TRC Plaintiff also seeks rescission, damages, and attorneys’ fees. On February 25, 2015, the Harris County trial court denied the TRC Plaintiff’s request for a preliminary injunction. The ATLS merger occurred on February 27, 2015. The TRC Plaintiff has indicated that it intends to dismiss the TRC Lawsuit with prejudice. Should the TRC Plaintiff decide not to dismiss, TRC Lawsuit Defendants will seek dismissal of the TRC Lawsuit. Atlas Unitholder Litigation Between October and December 2014, five public unitholders of APL (the “APL Plaintiffs”) filed putative class action lawsuits against APL, ATLS, APL GP, its managers, Targa, the Partnership, the general partner and MLP Merger Sub (the “APL Lawsuit Defendants”). These lawsuits are styled (a) Michael Evnin v. Atlas Pipeline Partners, L.P., et al., in the Court of Common Pleas for Allegheny County, Pennsylvania; (b) William B. Federman Family Wealth Preservation Trust v. Atlas Pipeline Partners, L.P., et al., in the District Court of Tulsa County, Oklahoma (the “Tulsa Lawsuit”); (c) Greenthal Living Trust U/A 01/26/88 v. Atlas Pipeline Partners, L.P., et al., in the Court of Common Pleas for Allegheny County, Pennsylvania; (d) Mike Welborn v. Atlas Pipeline Partners, L.P., et al., in the Court of Common Pleas for Allegheny County, Pennsylvania; and (e) Irving Feldbaum v. Atlas Pipeline Partners, L.P., et al., in the Court of Common Pleas for Allegheny County, Pennsylvania, though the Tulsa Lawsuit has since been voluntarily dismissed. The Evnin, Greenthal, Welborn and Feldbaum lawsuits have been consolidated as In re Atlas Pipeline Partners, L.P. Unitholder Litigation, Case No. GD-14-019245, in the Court of Common Pleas for Allegheny County, Pennsylvania (the “Consolidated APL Lawsuit”). In October and November 2014, two public unitholders of ATLS (the “ATLS Plaintiffs” and, together with the APL Plaintiffs, the “Atlas Lawsuit Plaintiffs”) filed putative class action lawsuits against ATLS, ATLS Energy GP, LLC, the general partner of ATLS (“ATLS GP”), its managers, Targa and GP Merger Sub (the “ATLS Lawsuit Defendants” and, together with the APL Lawsuit Defendants, the “Atlas Lawsuit Defendants”). These lawsuits are styled (a) Rick Kane v. Atlas Energy, L.P., et al., in the Court of Common Pleas for Allegheny County, Pennsylvania and (b) Jeffrey Ayers v. Atlas Energy, L.P., et al., in the Court of Common Pleas for Allegheny County, Pennsylvania (the “ATLS Lawsuits”). The ATLS Lawsuits have been consolidated as In re Atlas Energy, L.P. Unitholder Litigation, Case No. GD-14-019658, in the Court of Common Pleas for Allegheny County, Pennsylvania (the “Consolidated ATLS Lawsuit” and, together with the Consolidated APL Lawsuit, the “Consolidated Atlas Lawsuits”), though the Tulsa lawsuit and the Kane lawsuit have since been voluntarily dismissed. The Atlas Lawsuit Plaintiffs alleged a variety of causes of action challenging the Atlas mergers. Generally, the APL Plaintiffs alleged that (a) APL GP’s managers have breached the covenant of good faith and/or their fiduciary duties and (b) Targa, the Partnership, the general partner, MLP Merger Sub, APL, ATLS and APL GP have aided and abetted in these alleged breaches of the covenant of good faith and/or fiduciary duties. The APL Plaintiffs further alleged that (a) the premium offered to APL’s unitholders is inadequate, (b) APL agreed to contractual terms that will allegedly dissuade other potential acquirers from seeking to acquire APL, and (c) APL GP’s managers favored their self-interests over the interests of APL’s unitholders. The APL Plaintiffs in the Consolidated APL Lawsuit also alleged that the registration statement filed on November 19, 2014 fails, among other things, to disclose allegedly material details concerning (i) Stifel, Nicolaus & Company, Incorporated’s analysis of the ATLS merger and APL merger (the “Transactions”); (ii) APL and the Partnership’s financial projections; and (iii) the background of the Transactions. Generally, the ATLS Plaintiffs allege that (a) ATLS GP’s directors have breached the covenant of good faith and/or their fiduciary duties and (b) Targa, GP Merger Sub, and ATLS have aided and abetted in these alleged breaches of the covenant of good faith and/or fiduciary duties. The ATLS Plaintiffs further allege that (a) the premium offered to the ATLS unitholders was inadequate, (b) ATLS agreed to contractual terms that would allegedly dissuade other potential acquirers from seeking to acquire ATLS, (c) ATLS GP’s directors favored their self-interests over the interests of the ATLS unitholders and (d) the registration statement failed to disclose allegedly material details concerning, among other things, (i) Wells Fargo Securities, LLC, Stifel, Nicolaus & Company, Incorporated, and Deutsche Bank Securities Inc.’s analyses of the Transactions; (ii) the Partnership, Targa, APL, and ATLS’ financial projections; and (iii) the background of the Transactions. Based on these allegations, the Atlas Lawsuit Plaintiffs sought to enjoin the Atlas Lawsuit Defendants from proceeding with or consummating the Atlas mergers unless and until APL and ATLS adopted and implemented processes to obtain the best possible terms for their respective unitholders. The Atlas Lawsuit Plaintiffs also sought rescission, damages, and attorneys’ fees. The parties to the Consolidated Atlas Lawsuits agreed to settle the Consolidated Atlas Lawsuits on February 9, 2015. In general, the settlements provide that in consideration for the dismissal of the Consolidated Atlas Lawsuits, ATLS and APL will provide supplemental disclosures regarding the Atlas mergers in a filing with the SEC on Form 8-K, which ATLS and APL did on February 11, 2015. The Atlas Lawsuit Defendants agreed to make such supplemental disclosures solely to avoid the uncertainty, risk, burden, and expense inherent in litigation and deny that any supplemental disclosure was or is required under any applicable rule, statute, regulation or law. The parties to the Consolidated Atlas Lawsuits are drafting settlement agreements and expect to seek court approval of the settlements. We are also a party to various legal, administrative and regulatory proceedings that have arisen in the ordinary course of our business.

Note 16 – Contingencies

Legal Proceedings

Targa Shareholder Litigation

On January 28, 2015, a public shareholder of Targa (the “TRC Plaintiff”) filed a putative class action and derivative lawsuit against Targa (as a nominal defendant), its directors at the time of the ATLS merger (the “TRC Director Defendants”), and ATLS (together with Targa and the TRC Director Defendants, the “TRC Lawsuit Defendants”). This lawsuit is styled Inspired Investors v. Joe Bob Perkins, et al., Cause No. 2015-04961, in the District Court of Harris County, Texas (the “TRC Lawsuit”).

The TRC Plaintiff alleged a variety of causes of action challenging the ATLS merger and the disclosures related to the ATLS merger. Generally, the TRC Plaintiff alleged that the TRC Director Defendants breached their fiduciary duties. The TRC Plaintiff further alleged that the registration statement filed on January 22, 2015 fails to disclose allegedly material details concerning (i) Wells Fargo Securities, LLC’s and the TRC Director Defendants’ supposed conflicts of interest with respect to the ATLS merger, (ii) Targa’s financial projections, (iii) the background of the ATLS merger, and (iv) Wells Fargo Securities, LLC’s analysis of the ATLS merger. The TRC Plaintiff also alleged that Targa overpaid to acquire ATLS.

Based on these allegations, the TRC Plaintiff sought to enjoin the TRC Lawsuit Defendants from proceeding with or consummating the ATLS merger. The TRC Plaintiff also seeks rescission, damages, and attorneys’ fees. On February 25, 2015, the Harris County trial court denied the TRC Plaintiff’s request for a preliminary injunction. The ATLS merger occurred on February 27, 2015. The TRC Plaintiff has indicated that it intends to dismiss the TRC Lawsuit with prejudice. Should the TRC Plaintiff decide not to dismiss, TRC Lawsuit Defendants will seek dismissal of the TRC Lawsuit.

Atlas Unitholder Litigation

Between October and December 2014, five public unitholders of APL (the “APL Plaintiffs”) filed putative class action lawsuits against APL, ATLS, APL GP, its managers, Targa, the Partnership, the general partner and MLP Merger Sub (the “APL Lawsuit Defendants”). These lawsuits are styled (a) Michael Evnin v. Atlas Pipeline Partners, L.P., et al., in the Court of Common Pleas for Allegheny County, Pennsylvania; (b) William B. Federman Family Wealth Preservation Trust v. Atlas Pipeline Partners, L.P., et al., in the District Court of Tulsa County, Oklahoma (the “Tulsa Lawsuit”); (c) Greenthal Living Trust U/A 01/26/88 v. Atlas Pipeline Partners, L.P., et al., in the Court of Common Pleas for Allegheny County, Pennsylvania; (d) Mike Welborn v. Atlas Pipeline Partners, L.P., et al., in the Court of Common Pleas for Allegheny County, Pennsylvania; and (e) Irving Feldbaum v. Atlas Pipeline Partners, L.P., et al., in the Court of Common Pleas for Allegheny County, Pennsylvania, though the Tulsa Lawsuit has since been voluntarily dismissed. The Evnin, Greenthal, Welborn and Feldbaum lawsuits have been consolidated as In re Atlas Pipeline Partners, L.P. Unitholder Litigation, Case No. GD-14-019245, in the Court of Common Pleas for Allegheny County, Pennsylvania (the “Consolidated APL Lawsuit”). In October and November 2014, two public unitholders of ATLS (the “ATLS Plaintiffs” and, together with the APL Plaintiffs, the “Atlas Lawsuit Plaintiffs”) filed putative class action lawsuits against ATLS, ATLS Energy GP, LLC, the general partner of ATLS (“ATLS GP”), its managers, Targa and GP Merger Sub (the “ATLS Lawsuit Defendants” and, together with the APL Lawsuit Defendants, the “Atlas Lawsuit Defendants”). These lawsuits are styled (a) Rick Kane v. Atlas Energy, L.P., et al., in the Court of Common Pleas for Allegheny County, Pennsylvania and (b) Jeffrey Ayers v. Atlas Energy, L.P., et al., in the Court of Common Pleas for Allegheny County, Pennsylvania (the “ATLS Lawsuits”). The ATLS Lawsuits have been consolidated as In re Atlas Energy, L.P. Unitholder Litigation, Case No. GD-14-019658, in the Court of Common Pleas for Allegheny County, Pennsylvania (the “Consolidated ATLS Lawsuit” and, together with the Consolidated APL Lawsuit, the “Consolidated Atlas Lawsuits”), though the Tulsa lawsuit and the Kane lawsuit have since been voluntarily dismissed.

The Atlas Lawsuit Plaintiffs alleged a variety of causes of action challenging the Atlas mergers. Generally, the APL Plaintiffs alleged that (a) APL GP’s managers have breached the covenant of good faith and/or their fiduciary duties and (b) Targa, the Partnership, the general partner, MLP Merger Sub, APL, ATLS and APL GP have aided and abetted in these alleged breaches of the covenant of good faith and/or fiduciary duties. The APL Plaintiffs further alleged that (a) the premium offered to APL’s unitholders is inadequate, (b) APL agreed to contractual terms that will allegedly dissuade other potential acquirers from seeking to acquire APL, and (c) APL GP’s managers favored their self-interests over the interests of APL’s unitholders. The APL Plaintiffs in the Consolidated APL Lawsuit also alleged that the registration statement filed on November 19, 2014 fails, among other things, to disclose allegedly material details concerning (i) Stifel, Nicolaus & Company, Incorporated’s analysis of the ATLS merger and APL merger (the “Transactions”); (ii) APL and the Partnership’s financial projections; and (iii) the background of the Transactions. Generally, the ATLS Plaintiffs allege that (a) ATLS GP’s directors have breached the covenant of good faith and/or their fiduciary duties and (b) Targa, GP Merger Sub, and ATLS have aided and abetted in these alleged breaches of the covenant of good faith and/or fiduciary duties. The ATLS Plaintiffs further allege that (a) the premium offered to the ATLS unitholders was inadequate, (b) ATLS agreed to contractual terms that would allegedly dissuade other potential acquirers from seeking to acquire ATLS, (c) ATLS GP’s directors favored their self-interests over the interests of the ATLS unitholders and (d) the registration statement failed to disclose allegedly material details concerning, among other things, (i) Wells Fargo Securities, LLC, Stifel, Nicolaus & Company, Incorporated, and Deutsche Bank Securities Inc.’s analyses of the Transactions; (ii) the Partnership, Targa, APL, and ATLS’ financial projections; and (iii) the background of the Transactions.

Based on these allegations, the Atlas Lawsuit Plaintiffs sought to enjoin the Atlas Lawsuit Defendants from proceeding with or consummating the Atlas mergers unless and until APL and ATLS adopted and implemented processes to obtain the best possible terms for their respective unitholders. The Atlas Lawsuit Plaintiffs also sought rescission, damages, and attorneys’ fees.

The parties to the Consolidated Atlas Lawsuits agreed to settle the Consolidated Atlas Lawsuits on February 9, 2015. In general, the settlements provide that in consideration for the dismissal of the Consolidated Atlas Lawsuits, ATLS and APL will provide supplemental disclosures regarding the Atlas mergers in a filing with the SEC on Form 8-K, which ATLS and APL did on February 11, 2015. The Atlas Lawsuit Defendants agreed to make such supplemental disclosures solely to avoid the uncertainty, risk, burden, and expense inherent in litigation and deny that any supplemental disclosure was or is required under any applicable rule, statute, regulation or law. The parties to the Consolidated Atlas Lawsuits are drafting settlement agreements and expect to seek court approval of the settlements.

We are also a party to various legal, administrative and regulatory proceedings that have arisen in the ordinary course of our business.