Investors in certain oil and gas limited partnerships offered and underwritten by David Lerner Associates, Inc. (“David Lerner”) — including Energy 11, L.P. (“Energy 11”) and Energy Resources 12, L.P. (“ER12”) — may be able to recover investment losses through FINRA arbitration, in the event that the investor’s broker lacked a reasonable basis for the recommendation, or if the nature of the investment including its many risk components was misrepresented by the financial advisor. Energy 11 is a Delaware limited partnership formed in 2013 “to acquire producing and non-producing oil and natural gas properties onshore in the United States and to develop those properties.” Specifically, as of March 31, 2017, Energy 11 had made key acquisitions in certain Sanish Field Assets (for approx. $340.5 million) located in North Dakota in proximity to the Bakken Shale.

ER12 was formed in 2016 as a Delaware limited partnership, with essentially the same objective as Energy 11, namely to “acquire producing and non-producing oil and gas properties with development potential by third-party operators on-shore in the United States.” On February 1, 2018, ER12 closed on the purchase of certain Bakken Assets, including a minority working interest in approximately 204 existing producing wells and approximately 547 future development locations, primarily in McKenzie, Dunn, McLean and Mountrail counties in North Dakota.

Structured as limited partnerships, both Energy 11 and ER12 carry significant risks that may not be adequately explained to retail investors in marketing pitches by financial advisors who may recommend these complex financial products. To begin, both Energy 11 and ER12 were only recently formed (2013 and 2016, respectively) and have very little operating history. Moreover, each limited partnership is helmed by a CEO and CFO, Glade Knight and David McKenney, whose primary experience is in the real estate industry, not the oil and gas arena. Oil and gas investments by their very nature are extremely volatile as they are subject to the boom and bust cycles which characterize the oil market.

Perhaps of greatest concern to investors in oil and gas limited partnerships like Energy 11 and ER 12 is their illiquid nature. Investors in the common units of either Energy 11 or ER12 cannot readily or easily sell their units, as there is no public market on which these units trade. Rather, investors must be able to hold their investment position indefinitely, until such time as a Liquidity Event may occur, which will likely only occur “within five to seven years from the termination” of the investment’s offering, at the earliest.

When a broker and/or brokerage firm recommends an oil and gas investment to a client, the financial advisor should first ensure that the investor is aware from the outset of the volatile nature of an oil and gas investment. Further, the financial advisor has a duty to determine if the investment is suitable in light of the investor’s profile and stated investment objectives. In addition, in instances where an investor’s account becomes over-concentrated in oil and gas investments, or if a broker fails to disclose the risks associated with such an investment or investment strategy, the broker and his or her firm may well be held liable for losses on the investment.

The attorneys at Law Office of Christopher J. Gray, P.C. have significant experience representing investors in disputes concerning oil and gas investments, including MLPs and limited partnerships, drilling programs, and private placements. Investors may contact us via the contact form on this website, by telephone at (866) 966-9598, or by e-mail at newcases@investorlawyers.net for a no-cost, confidential consultation. Attorneys at the firm are admitted in New York and Wisconsin and various federal courts around the country, and handle cases nationwide (in cooperation with attorneys located in those states if required by applicable rules).

If your financial advisor recommended an investment in All American Oil & Gas (“AAOG”) stock, limited partnership units, or high yield (“junk”) bonds, you may be able to recover losses sustained through FINRA arbitration, in the event your broker lacked a reasonable basis for the recommendation, or if your financial advisor failed to disclose the many risks associated with an investment in AAOG. Headquartered in San Antonio, TX, AAOG is a privately held oil and gas producer that is the parent company of subsidiaries Western Power & Steam, Inc. (“WPS”) and Kern River Holding Inc. (“KRH”), an upstream exploration and production outfit with approximately 124 producing wells in the Kern River Oil Field. Together, AAOG, WPS and KRH are referred to as the Company.

On November 12, 2018, the Company filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in U.S. District Court in the Western District of Texas, citing “an ongoing dispute with its lenders.” As of the date of filing its petition, the Company has a total of $141,942,197 in debt obligations. According to the bankruptcy petition, in a number of instances KRH is the borrower on the Company’s loan facilities, as it requires regular ongoing cash flows to maintain its exploration and production activities.

With U.S. crude oil now trading below $50 per barrel (in 2014 oil was trading around $100, and as recently as September 2018 was hovering around $80 per barrel), many oil and gas companies may now be encountering financial distress after leveraging their balance sheets in order to fund costly exploration, drilling and related operations. Predictably, this overleveraging has placed some oil and gas companies in a precarious financial position, particularly those operating in the capital-intensive and risky upstream sector of the oil and gas market.

When a broker and/or brokerage firm recommends an oil and gas investment to a client, the financial advisor should first ensure that the investor is aware from the outset of the volatile nature of an oil and gas investment; essentially, such an investment amounts to a commodity play attached to the price movement of oil. Further, the financial advisor has a duty to determine if the investment is suitable in light of the investor’s profile and stated investment objectives. In addition, in instances where an investor’s account becomes over-concentrated in oil and gas investments, or if a broker fails to disclose the risks associated with such an investment or investment strategy, the broker and his or her firm may well be held liable for losses on the investment.

The attorneys at Law Office of Christopher J. Gray, P.C. have significant experience representing investors in disputes concerning oil and gas investments, including MLPs, drilling programs, and private placements. Investors may contact us via the contact form on this website, by telephone at (866) 966-9598, or by e-mail at newcases@investorlawyers.net for a no-cost, confidential consultation. Attorneys at the firm are admitted in New York and Wisconsin and various federal courts around the country, and handle cases nationwide (in cooperation with attorneys located in those states if required by applicable rules).

Hard Rock Exploration, Inc. (“Hard Rock”) of Charleston, West Virginia and certain of its affiliate entities, including Blue Jacket Gathering LLC, Blue Jacket Partnership, Caraline Energy Company, and Brothers Realty, LLC (“Hard Rock Affiliates”), are independent oil and gas development companies.

On September 5, 2017, Hard Rock and Hard Rock Affiliates filed for bankruptcy protection in the Southern District of West Virginia Bankruptcy Court (2:17-bk-20459). Shortly after filing for Chapter 11 bankruptcy, Hard Rock reported a monthly cash flow shortage of $325,000. According to Hard Rock’s lender, Huntington National Bank, “rehabilitation of the Debtors’ business is impossible” due to their ongoing hemorrhaging of cash.

Hard Rock and Hard Rock Affiliates operate approximately 390 well sites in the Appalachian Basin. In addition, Caraline Energy Co. owns and maintains approximately 365 miles of pipeline developed to support natural gas collection.

Included among Hard Rock’s offerings are private placement investments such as Hard Rock Partners 2011-A L.P. Structured as a limited partnership, such an investment is very complicated and risky. To begin, private placements often carry considerable up-front commissions and fees, which serve as an immediate “drag” on any investment. Further, private placements are illiquid investments; thus, once an investor buys in, it is often difficult to readily exit the investment position.

Brokerage firms that market private placements must first conduct due diligence on the investment. The due diligence rule stems from FINRA Rule 2111, the so-called suitability rule, which mandates that a brokerage firm have reasonable grounds to believe that an investment recommendation to purchase a security is suitable for a given customer. This principle is further expanded and amplified in FINRA Notice to Members (NTM) 03-71, which states that a brokerage firm must perform significant due diligence before recommending a private placement investment to a customer. By recommending an investment to a customer, the brokerage firm is essentially representing that a reasonable investigation of the merits of the investment has been conducted.

Additionally, through NTM 10-22, FINRA has provided further guidance to brokerage firms and their registered representatives with regard to the degree and scope of due diligence required when vetting oil and gas investments. Specifically, FINRA has advised the brokerage industry that due diligence on an oil and gas investment may include: “visiting and inspecting a sample of the issuer’s assets and facilities,” in addition to “carefully examining any geological, land use, engineering or other reports by third-party experts…”, and “obtaining, with respect to energy development and exploration programs, expert opinions from engineers, geologists and others…” as necessary to determine the suitability of the investment.

Investors in private placement investments may have arbitration claims if the broker or investment advisor who recommended the investment lacked a reasonable basis to make the recommendation, or failed to disclose the risks associated with such an investment. Investors may contact attorneys at Law Office of Christopher J. Gray, P.C. by telephone at (866) 966-9598 or via email at newcases@investorlawyers.net for a no-cost, confidential consultation.

Investors in various oil drilling programs offered by Vista Resources, Inc. (“Vista”), may be able to recover losses sustained on their investment through arbitration before FINRA, in the event that the investment was recommended by a financial advisor who lacked a reasonable basis for the recommendation, or if the nature of the investment — including its risk components — was misrepresented by the advisor and his or her brokerage firm. Founded in 1987, Vista is headquartered in Pittsburgh, PA. Over the course of the past several decades, Vista has managed roughly 60 drilling programs, typically structured as industry joint ventures or limited partnerships.

Included among Vista’s recent programs are: Vista Drilling Program 2011-1, Vista Drilling Program 2012, and Vista Drilling Program 2013-2 (collectively, “Vista Programs”). These Vista Programs are extremely complex and risky investment vehicles, for a number of reasons. To begin, these private oil and gas investments charge very high fees to investors. For example, Vista charges investors an approximate 10% up-front commission. In addition, Vista charges an approximate 12% markup fee on the costs associated with drilling for productive oil reserves. Such high up-front commissions and fees act as an immediate “drag” on the initial investment, and present significant risk to the uninformed retail investor.

Further, these Vista Programs are allowed to use up to 20% of investor capital to drill speculative exploratory wells. A broker recommending such an investment has a duty to inform the investor of such risks, and of the capital-intensive and speculative nature of oil drilling as an investment. Moreover, the brokerage firm — and by extension, the broker — recommending such an investment, have a duty to first conduct due diligence on the investment.

As a commodity, the price movement of oil has historically been very volatile (boom and bust cycles are typical), and accordingly, many illiquid oil and gas investments such as the Vista Programs are not suitable for ordinary investors. Ultimately, the financial advisor and his or her firm have an affirmative duty to determine if the investment is suitable for the investor, pursuant to FINRA Rule 2111, in light of the investor’s profile and stated investment objectives. In instances where an investor’s account becomes over-concentrated in oil and gas investments, or a broker fails to disclose the risks associated with such an investment or investment strategy, the broker and his or her firm may be liable for losses sustained.

Investors with questions about a possible claim concerning investments in any of the Vista Programs, or other oil and gas related investments, may contact Law Office of Christopher J. Gray, P.C. at (866) 966-9598 or newcases@investorlawyers.net for a no-cost, confidential consultation.

Former financial advisor Scott William Palmer (CRD# 817586), who was most recently affiliated with Janney Montgomery Scott LLC (“Janney”) (BD# 463), has voluntarily consented to a bar from the securities industry pursuant to a Letter of Acceptance, Waiver & Consent (“AWC”) accepted by FINRA Enforcement on April 10, 2018. Without admitting or denying any wrongdoing, the Hackensack, NJ-based former broker consented to the industry bar following his June 13, 2017 termination from employment by Janney.

Mr. Palmer’s career in the securities industry dates back to 1973, and included stints at now defunct Darby & Co., Dean Witter, Citigroup, and — most recently, Janney — from 2007-2017. In June 2017, Janney permitted Mr. Palmer to resign; according to publicly available information and as disclosed on Mr. Palmer’s Form U-5, his discharge from employment was due to Janney’s “Loss of confidence related to complaint disclosure history.”

FINRA records indicate that Mr. Palmer has been subject to twelve customer disputes, including one case in which relief was denied, and another case that settled in July 2016 for $75,000 alleging that Mr. Palmer had made unsuitable investments in the customer’s account. According to FINRA BrokerCheck, of the ten customer complaints pending arbitration, a number of them allege that Mr. Palmer purportedly recommended unsuitable investments in certain energy stocks, and further, overconcentrated certain customers in energy sector investments.

Pursuant to the AWC, FINRA Enforcement alleged it was carrying out an investigation surrounding potential suitability violations concerning Mr. Palmer. Moreover, FINRA sent a request on February 2, 2018 to Mr. Palmer, for his appearance for on-the-record testimony pursuant to FINRA Rule 8210. While Mr. Palmer purportedly acknowledged the request for testimony, according to FINRA he failed to appear.

When recommending an oil and gas investment to a customer, a brokerage firm — and by extension the broker — has a duty to first conduct due diligence on the investment. In addition, an oil and gas investment is unique and carries certain risks associated with the volatile nature of the underlying commodity. Further, the financial advisor recommending such an investment has a duty to determine if the investment is suitable pursuant to Rule 2111 in light of the investor’s profile and stated investment objectives. In instances where an investor’s account becomes over-concentrated in oil and gas investments, or a broker fails to disclose the risks associated with such an investment or investment strategy, the broker and his or her firm may well be liable for losses on the investment.

The attorneys at Law Office of Christopher J. Gray, P.C. have experience in representing investors in oil and gas investments, including investors in futures and options, oil and gas private placements, drilling funds, and other energy-related investment products. Investors may contact a securities arbitration lawyer at (866) 966-9598 or via email at newcases@investorlawyers.net for a no-cost, confidential consultation.

On April 2, 2018, EV Energy Partners, L.P. (“EVEP”) filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in the District of Delaware (Case No. 18-10814 (CIS)). While EVEP continues to operate its business, it now seeks to implement a prepackaged plan of reorganization, under which equity investors who purchased EVEP Units will likely sustain significant losses.

Investors who bought into EVEP upon a recommendation by their broker or financial advisor may be able to recover their losses in FINRA arbitration, in the event the recommendation to invest lacked a reasonable basis, or if the investment was solicited through a misleading sales presentation. EVEP is a publicly traded master limited partnership (“MLP”) specializing in the acquisition and operation and development of onshore oil and gas properties in the continental United States. EVEP’s holdings include oil and gas properties in the Barnett Shale, the San Juan Basin, the Appalachian Basin, as well as the Permian Basin.

As most recently reported, under the currently proposed plan of reorganization, EVEP Unitholders will receive 5% of the new entity (post-bankruptcy), with 5-year warrants to buy up to 8% of the reorganized company’s new equity.

MLPs like EVEP operate in what is known as the upstream of the oil and gas sector, meaning that segment of the market that focuses on energy exploration and production (E&P), as opposed to the more well-known midstream MLPs that primarily transport oil and natural gas by pipeline, barge, etc. Due in part to the risks associated with locating productive reserves and the cost-intensive nature of oil and gas exploration, the upstream market is very risky. Based upon publicly available information, of the 13 companies doing business as upstream MLPs in recent years (post-2008 crisis), 11 of the 13 are now defunct or reorganized due to mergers, bankruptcies, or changed business models.

When recommending an oil and gas investment to a customer, a brokerage firm — and by extension the broker — has a duty to first conduct due diligence on the investment. In addition, an oil and gas investment is unique and carries certain risks associated with the volatile nature of the underlying commodity. Further, the financial advisor recommending such an investment has a duty to determine if the investment is suitable in light of the investor’s profile and stated investment objectives. In instances where an investor’s account becomes over-concentrated in oil and gas investments, or a broker fails to disclose the risks associated with such an investment or investment strategy, the broker and his or her firm may well be liable for losses on the investment.

The attorneys at Law Office of Christopher J. Gray, P.C. have experience in representing investors in oil and gas investments, including investors in futures and options, oil and gas private placements, drilling funds, and other energy-related investment products. Investors may contact a securities arbitration lawyer at (866) 966-9598 or via email at newcases@investorlawyers.net for a no-cost, confidential consultation.

Investors in the Triloma EIG Energy Income Fund (the “Triloma Perpetual Fund”) and the Triloma EIG Energy Income Fund – Term I (the “Triloma Term Fund”) (collectively, the “Triloma Funds”) may be able to recover their investment losses through FINRA arbitration, in the event that the investment was recommended by a financial advisor who lacked a reasonable basis for the recommendation, or if the nature of the investment was misrepresented by the financial advisor. The Triloma Funds are publicly registered, unlisted closed-end management investment companies under the Investment Company Act of 1940 (’40 Act) that focus on investing in privately originated energy company and energy project debt. The Triloma Funds are managed by Triloma Energy Advisors and EIG Credit Management Company.

On March 26, 2018, the Board of Trustees of the Funds approved a plan of liquidation of each respective fund, authorizing the liquidation and dissolution of the Triloma Funds. Pursuant to the liquidation plan, the Triloma Funds will not engage in any further business activities, except for the purpose of winding down operations and business affairs. Further, in accordance with the plan of liquidation, the Boards agreed to terminate each funds’ respective distribution reinvestment plan and previously approved monthly distributions.

Under the plan of liquidation, the Triloma Funds have agreed to sell their originated investments to a third-party and will use a portion of the proceeds to pay all of their outstanding debts, claims and obligations. Triloma Funds’ shareholders can expect to receive an initial cash liquidating distribution on or about May 15, 2018. To the extent that any assets might remain after such liquidation payments and satisfaction of final expenses, there will be a second liquidating distribution above a threshold of $100 per shareholder made on or before June 30, 2018.

Investing in unlisted or non-traded securities — including non-publicly traded real estate investment trusts (“REITs”), business development companies (“BDCs”), and energy sector investment vehicles including closed-end management companies such as the Triloma Funds — often is a risky proposition. Such investments are typically complex in their structure, often charge high fees and commissions payable to the fund sponsor and broker recommending the investment (as high as 15% of the initial capital outlay in some instances), and are illiquid.

Moreover, investing in the oil and gas sector carries with it unique risks, and many oil and gas investments may not be suitable for the average, retail investor. When a broker recommends an oil and gas investment to a client, the brokerage firm and broker first have a duty to conduct due diligence on the investment. In addition, the financial advisor has a duty to determine if the investment is suitable in light of the investor’s profile and stated investment objectives.

Attorneys at Law Office of Christopher J. Gray, P.C. have substantial experience representing clients in cases involving non-conventional investments and oil and gas-related securities. Investors may contact a securities arbitration attorney at Law Office of Christopher J. Gray, P.C. (866) 966-9598 or newcases@investorlawyers.net for a no-cost, confidential consultation.