Antitrust Law Daily Wrap Up, ANTITRUST—D. Colo.: For second time, gas pipeline companies unable to snuff out unfair access restrictions suit, (Aug 25, 2015)

By Linda O’Brien, J.D., LL.M.

For the second time, the federal district court in Denver has refused to dismiss an antitrust action alleging foreclosure of competition in the exploration for and production of natural gas from Colorado's Ragged Mountain Area on res judicata, release, or statute of limitations grounds (Buccaneer Energy Inc. v. Gunnison Energy Corporation, August 21, 2015, Matsch, R.).

Oil and gas producer Buccaneer Energy (USA), Inc. filed suit against three companies—Gunnison Energy Corporation, SG Interests I Ltd., and SG Interests VII Ltd.—alleging that they restrained access to the pipelines they owned and controlled in the Ragged Mountain Area with the intent to drive out competition in the production, gathering, processing, transportation, and sale of natural gas, produced from that field. Buccaneer had purchased the assets of a natural gas producing company, Riviera Drilling & Exploration Company. Riviera had sold natural gas to Gunnison, the operator of the pipeline system, co-owned by SGI. After the purchase, Gunnison allegedly made unreasonable demands for transporting gas from the Riviera leases.

After the court denied the defendants’ motion to dismiss in December 2012, the defendants again attempted to dismiss the complaint and moved for summary judgment.

The court found that Buccaneer’s claims were not precluded by the doctrine of res judicata based on the 2010 dismissal of a 2008 lawsuit brought by Buccaneer acquisition Riviera Drilling & Exploration Co. The dismissal of the Riviera lawsuit was a sanction for failure to prosecute after withdrawal of Rivera’s counsel shortly before a scheduled trial and Riviera’s inability to retain new counsel and pay the costs of litigation. There was no full and fair opportunity to litigate the antitrust claims, in the court’s view.

The defendants’ argument that Buccaneer’s claims were released by a 2014 settlement agreement resolving a bankruptcy adversary proceeding of Riviera was also rejected. The parties to the settlement agreement were the plan administrator, Gunnison, and two principals of Riviera. The release language of the agreement did not encompass Buccaneer’s claims, since the present case did not relate to Riviera and the defendants failed to show that Buccaneer was affiliated with the two Riviera principals.

Finally, Buccaneer’s antitrust claims were not barred by the application of the four-year statute of limitations. The court noted that the issue of when the limitations period accrued was a question of fact.

The case is No. 12-cv-01618-RPM.

Attorneys: Larry S. Pozner (Reilly Pozner, LLP) and Ronald L. Wilcox (Peters Mair Wilcox) for Buccaneer Energy (USA) Inc. Timothy R. Beyer (Bryan Cave LLP) for Gunnison Energy Corp. L. Poe Leggette (Baker & Hostetler, LLP) for SG Interests, I, Ltd. and SG Interests VII, Ltd.

Companies: Buccaneer Energy (USA) Inc.; Gunnison Energy Corp.; SG Interests, I, Ltd.; SG Interests VII, Ltd.

Cases: Antitrust ColoradoNews