Texas Oil Company Asks Federal Court to Stop Insurance Companies’ $250 Million Demand for Additional Collateral
11 Dezembro 2024 - 8:41PM
Business Wire
Amended lawsuit alleges price-fixing,
collusion, antitrust violations
An independent Texas oil and gas producer is striking back
against a group of insurance companies, which collectively are
seeking $250 million in collateral beyond what the oil company has
already contracted for bonds backing its production activities.
The energy company, Houston-based W&T Offshore, Inc. (NYSE:
WTI), is asking a federal judge to declare insurers have colluded
to damage the company by jointly demanding additional collateral
and premiums.
At the heart of the dispute are rules from the federal Bureau of
Ocean Energy Management – BOEM – which require energy producers in
the Outer Continental Shelf to provide a bond to pay for well,
platform, pipeline and facilities cleanup if the operating company
fails to do so.
Several years ago, BOEM imposed the idea of requiring small to
mid-sized companies such as W&T to provide additional bonds. In
over 70 years of producer operations in the Gulf of Mexico, the
federal government has never been forced to pay for any abandonment
cleanup operations associated with well, platform facility, or
pipeline operations.
W&T’s legal filing says that armed with that proposal, its
insurers (also known as surety providers), including Endurance
Assurance Corp., which is owned by Japanese insurance holding
company Sompo and others, began demanding additional collateral for
surety and indemnity agreements W&T already utilizes and for
which it has already paid premiums.
In July, one of the surety companies demanded W&T fully and
immediately collateralize their bond by paying an additional $89
million as collateral, then filed suit in November demanding $93.5
million, despite W&T never having missed a previous payment.
Other W&T surety companies followed suit, demanding full and
immediate collateralization of their bonds.
“These insurance companies and their unreasonable demands for
increased collateral pose an existential threat to independent
operators like W&T,” CEO Tracy W. Krohn said. “We cannot afford
to keep paying for insurance we’ve already paid for in the course
of our operations.
“This is no different than your auto insurance carrier all of a
sudden demanding you put up 100 percent of your car’s cash value in
addition to doubling or tripling your existing premium. It is just
not possible or practical—nor fair. These unfair practices beg the
question: if insurance companies are requiring full cash
collateralization of the bonds they issue, then what is the purpose
of independent operators paying them millions of dollars to issue
the bonds? These unfair insurance practices deprive independent
operators of the very consideration for which they contracted,
thereby making the insurance companies’ contractual obligations
illusory or non-existent,” said Mr. Krohn.
“We hope the court will recognize these crippling demands are
improper and malicious and stop these insurance companies from
trying to arbitrarily extort massive amounts of additional premium
and collateral from customers like W&T.”
Among other things, W&T’s lawsuit, filed in August and
amended today, accuses five insurance companies of conspiracy,
saying the insurers met one or more times in 2024 and conspired to
raise premiums and collateral. The complaint also includes
allegations of price-fixing, antitrust violations and tortious
interference with existing contracts, as well as violations of the
Texas Insurance Code and violations of the Texas Free Enterprise
and Antitrust Act.
It asks a federal judge in Houston to block the companies’
unconscionable and unreasonable demands for collateral and to award
damages to W&T.
W&T says it has valid bonds to cover the potential eventual
cost of cleaning up its offshore operations if or when the time
comes.
Several states, including Texas, are challenging the BOEM rule
and in one case they specifically cite W&T as an example of how
the rule could be misused to irreparably harm energy producers.
The case is W&T Offshore, Inc. et al. v. Endurance Assurance
Corporation, et al., Civil Action No. 4:24-CV-3047, in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Texas.
View source
version on businesswire.com: https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20241211846138/en/
Mark Annick 800-559-4534 mark@androvett.com
W and T Offshore (NYSE:WTI)
Gráfico Histórico do Ativo
De Nov 2024 até Dez 2024
W and T Offshore (NYSE:WTI)
Gráfico Histórico do Ativo
De Dez 2023 até Dez 2024