Latest Round of Proxy Announcements from Rice Bros., EQT
Another day, another round of press releases from both EQT and the Rice brothers over the future of the company. The two sides are locked in a proxy battle to nominate a majority of board members, who in turn will appoint (or keep) top management for the company. Yesterday’s round of letters was, in essence, a recap of news that broke late last week: One major shareholder advisory firm, Institutional Shareholder Services (ISS), supports the Rice brothers’ attempt to take over the company, while a second major advisory firm, Glass Lewis & Co., believes existing management is the right answer for EQT’s future.
Read More “Latest Round of Proxy Announcements from Rice Bros., EQT”



Both the Rice brothers and EQT are issuing press releases just about every day now in their battle to wrest (or keep) control of EQT. Yesterday the latest round of letters to shareholders, circulated via press release for the world to see, were issued. First up was a letter early yesterday from John F. McCartney, a Rice Team board nominee, praising Toby Rice (potential new EQT CEO). Later in the day EQT issued a letter chronicling what we would call an EQT listening tour. Although both letters tell shareholders to not vote for the other side’s board picks, noticeably absent from this latest round was the acrimony and personal attacks that have been present in recent letters.
LOLA Energy was birthed near the end of 2015, by former EQT executives using private equity money from Denham Capital (see
Although the second quarter isn’t over yet, EQT has just released “preliminary” 2Q19 financial and operational results in a bid to fend off a takeover attempt. EQT’s current management and board of directors is in a tough fight to retain control of the company. Toby and Derek Rice, formerly of Rice Energy (which was sold to EQT in 2017) are making a play to replace the board of directors and all of EQT’s top management.
A West Virginia Circuit Court case in September 2017, Crowder and Wentz v EQT, found in favor of surface landowners ruling that EQT did not have the right to extend underground shale wells to adjacent properties where EQT also owned the mineral rights (see
It’s hard enough for drillers to get permits town by town in Pennsylvania, where the standards are all different thanks to the seven selfish towns that appealed the Act 13 law passed in 2012 (see