There is already one casualty from the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia’s rejection of Chesapeake Energy Corporation’s petition for appeal from the $404 million verdict in Estate of Garrison G. Tawney v. Columbia Natural Resources, LLC.
Today, Chesapeake announced that it is canceling plans to build a $35 million regional headquarters in Charleston, and blamed the Supreme Court’s decision not to hear its appeal. Here is George Hohmann’s article about the decision in today’s (Charleston) Daily Mail.
Chesapeake issued this media statement today:
On Thursday May 22nd, the West Virginia State Supreme Court issued a unanimous (5-0) decision against hearing NiSource and Chesapeake’s appeal in the Tawney case. Chesapeake inherited the lawsuit when it purchased Columbia Natural Resources in 2005.
This decision was stunning, as it means we will not have the opportunity to challenge the verdict issued in Roane County in January, 2007. While we hold a less significant amount of the liability in the verdict, we do believe it sends a profoundly negative message about the business climate in the state. The reality of this decision is that nobody in West Virginia, similarly situated, has a guaranteed right of appeal in the judicial system. Chesapeake plans to join NiSource in appealing the case to the U.S. Supreme Court.
As a result, Chesapeake Energy has made the decision to cancel plans to build a new regional headquarters building in Charleston, WV.
We remain committed to our people and our operations in West Virginia and the Appalachian Basin. Chesapeake’s Eastern Division will continue to be managed from Charleston, but we will do it from leased space.
–Scott Rotruck, Vice President -Corporate Development
I have no doubt that Chesapeake is frustrated by the rejection of its appeal, but that was always a possibility. Unlike federal district court, with its right of appeal, nearly all appeals from West Virginia state courts are discretionary.
Chesapeake’s reaction strikes me as a case where its assessment of the success of its appeal may have been based on considerations such as the amount of the verdict, its investment in the local economy, or the prominence of the defendants, and Chesapeake is dismayed that the Supreme Court did not agree with its view.